Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Domestic Abuse service. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision and actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrongly labelled him a perpetrator of domestic abuse and did not support him as a victim. He further complains the Council does not have any support groups for men. He wants the council to help and support him and add him to support groups.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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

6. Mr X said the Council wrongly labelled him a domestic abuse perpetrator after his ex partner made allegations about him. He said the Council did not allow him to show his evidence that he was a victim.
7. The Council explained to Mr X its Domestic Violence and Abuse Partnership (DVAP) team follows a Dual Allegation policy. In cases where both parties make allegations about each other, it is for the DVAP team to decide who is the primary victim. It explained it decides this using information from intelligence sources and other agencies. It decided Mr X was not the primary victim of domestic abuse.
8. Mr X said the Council did not allow him to present the evidence that he was subject to domestic abuse. As part of my enquiries, the Council confirmed Mr X attended an appointment where he shared his experiences.
9. The Council reassured Mr X that not being the primary victim does not mean he was labelled as an abuser. In making its decision, the organisation took account of the relevant guidance, confidential intelligence, its Dual Allegation policy and information from Mr X. When Mr X complained to the Council, it reviewed its decision with oversight from management and the outcome remained the same. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making its decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.
10. Mr X complained the Council did not offer him any support. However, based on the information provided, DVAP was not deemed the most appropriate service and so the Council referred Mr X to its Prevention of Domestic Abuse Service (PODAS). It offers support around healthy relationships and parenting.
11. I understand Mr X believes the Council does not offer support groups to male victims of domestic abuse. The Council told me its DVAP service is not based on gender and supports people in line with their needs, not their gender. It has a male support group which is run by trained staff.
12. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions and how it offered to support Mr X in this case and therefore we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman