Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council creating a safety plan for his ex-partner without any discussion with the county council or other agencies. This is because the fault did not cause any significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council created a safety plan for his ex-partner without any discussion with the county council or other agencies. He says this safety plan impacted negatively on his child and undid all the positive work completed by the county council to improve his child’s mental wellbeing.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s child had received intervention from the county council to support with their wellbeing. Part of this intervention led to the establishment of 50/50 shared custody of his child with his ex-partner. This was arranged through a court order.
6. The Council created a safety plan for Mr X’s ex-partner due to concerns around domestic abuse she was potentially exposed to from a third party. Mr X said this safety plan recommended his ex-partner stop 50/50 custody.
7. Mr X was unhappy the Council failed to consult with the county council, or other agencies, before creating this safety plan. Mr X said this safety plan negatively impacted on his child. Mr X also says that due to the deterioration of his child, this then had a negative impact on his own wellbeing.
8. An investigation is not justified because the claimed fault did not directly cause Mr X any significant injustice. Mr X has framed his complaint as being about the Council’s failure to consult with other agencies before creating the safety plan. However, I do not consider this claimed fault, in isolation, directly led to the injustice Mr X claims.
9. Instead, it is the implementation of the safety plan itself that has caused the injustice. We previously investigated a complaint about the support provided, by the county council, to Mr X’s child following the implementation of the safety plan. Therefore, the injustice has already been considered by us.
10. Further, as the custody arrangements were established by a court order, it would be a matter for the courts to consider if Mr X’s ex-partner was not fulfilling their custody obligations.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the fault did not cause any significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman