Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his children and information it has recorded about him. There is nothing more we could add to the Council’s complaints responses to justify us investigating further. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to take his concerns about contact with his children to court and the accuracy of Council records to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has accused him of something he did not do and made assumptions about his character without evidence. He also complains the Council has been biased against him because of his race. He says this has impact on his contact with his children, and his and his children’s health. Mr X wants the Council to admit what it did wrong and to punish the staff involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. When we find fault, we can recommend remedies for significant personal injustice, or to prevent future injustice, caused by that fault. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaints under both stages of its complaint procedure. It explained it had not ignored Mr X's concerns for his children as this led to the Council starting a Child and Family Assessment (CAF), which was ongoing at the time of Mr X’s complaint. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaints as it found no evidence of bias in its interaction with him. The Council invited Mr X to provide further information about bias and racial discrimination in its stage one complaint response, but did not receive any further details from Mr X.
9. The Council also explained to Mr X that it did not have parental responsibility for his children to say what their care and contact arrangements should be. Any arrangements about care and contact of children is a private matter between the people who have parental responsibility. Where those people cannot agree on those arrangements, only the court has the power to intervene and make decisions about what arrangements would be in the child(ren)’s best interests and on any matters of dispute.
10. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because neither we nor the Council can make decisions about Mr X’s contact with his children. It would be reasonable for Mr X to take this matter to court.
11. If Mr X believes the Council has recorded inaccurate information about him, he may pursue his right to rectification under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). We will not investigate this part of his complaint, because it is open to him to bring his concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is better placed than us to consider them.
12. Mr X has told us he wants the staff involved in his children’s case punished for their actions. We will not investigate this issue because our role is to look into the Council’s actions as a corporate body, rather than to investigate an individual employee. If Mr X has concerns about the professionalism or conduct of an individual social worker, he can report his concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s responses. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to pursue his concerns in court and with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman