Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about being forced to go on a programme he did not agree to going on. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.

The complaint

1. Mr B says he did not consent to being party to the Channel Programme and was not provided with any help or support. Mr B says he was threatened, humiliated, felt targeted because of his protected characteristics and accused of extremism. Mr B says this has affected his mental health, which has declined since being put on the programme. He wants to meet the people involved so he can express his views and say what went wrong, and for them to undertake safeguarding training and have clearer line of communication. Mr B wants the Council investigated and the programme to receive less funding and support.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police or the Home Office. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council is responsible for maintaining a panel to oversee the ‘Channel’ programme under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. It chairs the panel, which involves the police, and other agencies as the Council and police consider appropriate. The role of the panel is to co-ordinate gathering information and assessing whether a person is at risk of being drawn into terrorism, and deciding what support it and other agencies should provide to the person if they consent to being on the programme.
7. The Channel panel considered a referral from the police about Mr B in early 2022. It decided to ‘adopt’ Mr B onto the programme in March. The police said Mr B had consented and was happy to engage and be part of the Channel process. Mr B disagrees he consented, but the steps the panel took did not require his consent, so we could not say the panel was at fault.
8. The Council confirmed in its response to Mr B’s complaint it was satisfied he was kept updated about the process and advised him of the correspondence he received. We could not add to this. We cannot investigate whether other agencies communicated properly with Mr B.
9. The Council has acknowledged it did not follow its statutory complaints process. Mr B’s complaint was not acknowledged within three days, However, it explained although Mr B’s complaint was delayed by 15 working days it was expedited to stage two of the process, so Mr B was not disadvantaged. It apologised for some initial confusion over registering his complaint and advised its contact centre supervisors to remind staff at their meetings of the initial actions required in the complaint process. We could achieve no more than this even if we investigated.
10. Neither we nor the Council can investigate the actions of the police or Home Office. Mr B says the police have refused to investigate his complaint about their actions and referred him back to the Council. Mr B can ask the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) to consider his complaint about the actions of police officers. Information about the IOPC is available at: Independent Office for Police Conduct.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants, and we cannot investigate other agencies involved in the events.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman