Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with children in her extended family including how it responded to safeguarding information, its communication, and how it considered the complaint because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council:
1. shared safeguarding information provided to it about children in her family with the subjects of concern;
2. failed to investigate safeguarding concerns she raised about children in her family;
3. failed to communicate effectively; and
4. used its corporate, rather than the children’s statutory, complaints process to consider her complaint.
2. Miss X said the matter caused her distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended.)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Shared safeguarding information provided to it about children in her family with the subjects of concern

6. We will not investigate this complaint. The complaint centres around information sharing when the Council receives safeguarding reports and how that was shared with the parents of the children who have Parental Responsibility.
7. Although Miss X said the Council shared information which caused family difficulties, the Council is not under an obligation to preserve anonymity in all cases where it receives a referral about safeguarding matters.
8. In this case, the Council said if Miss X or other family members make a safeguarding referral in the future it would consider not disclosing who made the referral. An investigation is unlikely to achieve anything else, and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Failed to investigate safeguarding concerns she raised about children in her family & poor communication

9. Miss X is an extended family member of the children she raised concerns about. She does not hold Parental Responsibility for the children. Consequently, the Council is limited in what information can and cannot be shared with Miss X.
10. In its complaint response the Council explained about how it had responded to various concerns regarding the children. It explained under which auspices the Council is involved with the children, and the broad actions it has taken.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation, and so we will not investigate.

Used its corporate, rather than the children’s statutory, complaints process to consider her complaint

12. The Children’s Statutory Complaints Process is regulated by the “Getting the Best from Complaints” statutory guidance. The guidance explains “who may complain”. Those that may complain under the statutory process include parents with Parental Responsibility, foster carers, and some others.
13. The Council decided to respond to Miss X’s complaint under its corporate complaints process. Miss X is not automatically eligible under the guidance to have her complaints considered under the statutory process. I consider that, on balance, the Council decided Miss X did not fall under the category of “who may complain” as part of the statutory complaints. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation, and we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman