Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s children’s case. The complaint relates mainly to the Council’s Section 7 report submitted to court, which the law prevents us from investigating. Other matters Mr X raises are late, and in any event there is insufficient evidence of fault. We do not have the power to change the court’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement in his children’s case. He says:
• it removed his children from his care while it investigated allegations against him; and
• it acted with bias as it had more communication with the children’s mother and wrote its Section 7 court report in her favour.
2. Mr X says these events led to the court siding with the children’s mother, and caused him distress and significant legal fees. He wants the Council to apologise, pay his fees and reconsider the case without bias.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
6. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
7. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mr X’s complaint is largely about the content of the Section 7 report the Council submitted to court as part of private proceedings. This was court-ordered, to inform the court in its decision about what would be in the children’s best interests. The law prevents us from considering what happened in court, which includes the contents of the Council’s report.
11. It was open to Mr X to raise his concerns about the Council’s report as part of the proceedings. It was also open to him to raise his concerns the Council communicated more with his ex-partner, as the alleged consequence of this was the content of its report. It is the court, not the Council, that made a decision about the children’s welfare. We have no power to change the court’s decision.
12. Mr X also complains the Council removed his children from his care on two occasions prior to the proceedings having concluded. I have considered whether this part of Mr X’s complaint is separable to the court proceedings. Mr X could have raised these issues in the court arena. However, the proceedings were private rather than instigated by the Council, and I am of the view this part of the complaint is sufficiently separable.
13. However, both occasions Mr X says the Council removed his children were more than 12 months before he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. The law says people must complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of matters, unless there are good reasons. Mr X could have complained to us sooner and there is not a good reason to exercise discretion to investigate this late complaint.
14. In any event, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Mr X has provided the Council’s case records, which show it did not remove his children from his care. Rather, the Council advised Mr X’s ex-partner to exercise her parental responsibility to safeguard her children. This is not fault, and a person with parental responsibility is entitled to exercise it in the best interests of their child. We cannot investigate any decision by the children’s mother to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the substantive matter is one that has been subject to court proceedings. Other matters are late and, in any event, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman