The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council forced his wife to leave home, his son to attend school rather than be home educated and failed to communicate with him appropriately. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault and no injustice. Investigation will not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
The complaint
Complaint 1: Mr X complains the Council forced his wife and child, ‘A’, to leave the family home and he does not know where they live. Mr X says on one occasion the police and social workers forced entry into his home. Mr X says there was an incident of domestic violence, but the Council manipulated the situation and placed his son on a child protection plan. Mr X says his wife is not capable of living independently or caring for their child due to being on medication for anxiety. He wants the family to live together again.
Complaint 2: Mr X complains the Council refused to allow him to educate his child at home and threatened legal action for non-school attendance. Mr X says he needed to self-isolate due to his health needs during the covid-19 pandemic and it was reasonable for him not to send his child to school.
Complaint 3: Mr X complains the Council did not communicate with him properly, did not deal with his complaints or make reasonable adjustments given his health. Mr X says he did not cooperate with the Council and does not want anything to do with it. He says it has intruded on his family life. Mr X says the Council caused him anxiety.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I have considered Mr X’s information and comments and have discussed the complaint with Mr X by telephone. The Council has provided the complaint correspondence. I have considered Mr X’s reply to the draft decision statement.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons: Complaint 1: There is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice in the Council’s decision to do child protection enquires and place ‘child A’ on a child protection plan: Late in 2020, the Council received referrals from the primary school expressing concern that ‘child A’ was not being educated and from the police following an incident between Mr and Mrs X in which Mr X stated he assaulted his wife. The Council has a legal duty (Children Act 1989, section 47) to investigate the risk of significant harm to a child.
The Council had information of an unstable relationship between Mr and Mrs X and allegations of coercive control. There was concern Mrs X and ‘child A’ were not being allowed out of the family home. That raised concerns about the health and wellbeing of child A which required investigation. Mr X acknowledges in his stage 2 complaint to the Council that Mrs X left home on her own on one occasion although he says this was due to anxiety caused by the actions of the authorities. The evidence shows Mrs X went on occasion with ‘child A’ to her mother’s.
In February 2021, the police and social workers visited Mr X’s home to see child A. Mr X refused access and the police forced entry using police powers. The Ombudsman cannot investigate what was a police decision to break in. There is evidence that Mr X previously refused access to the home/child A and he has told me he refused to cooperate. Child A was on a child protection plan and had not been seen for a number of weeks by any professional. Mr X should have cooperated with the authorities and acted in the best interest of his child. The Council has not caused him injustice.
In February 2021 the Council started the pre-care proceedings procedure. Mr X and his wife both had solicitors. There is no fault in the Council explaining its position that should Mrs X return home with child A it would consider taking legal action.
The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome which Mr X wants which is the family living together again. Mrs X lives independently with child A. Mr X tells me the Council arranged contact and Mrs X and child A visit him at his home. He tells me they return to their address independently using public transport.
Complaint 2: There is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice. The Council had evidence that ‘child A’ was not properly educated for a long time. It was entitled to refuse Mr X permission to home education and act to ensure school attendance. When child A returned to school it was found that his education and physical welfare had regressed. He progressed following regular attendance at school. There is reference to the issuing of a school attendance order and Mr X has mentioned court. If Mr X was prosecuted a court would decide the case.
Complaint 3: There is no injustice caused to Mr X by how the Council has communicated with him. The Council attempted to work in partnership with Mr X. There is evidence in the complaint information that Mr X objected to the Council telephoning him which is his preferred way of communication. The Council put his complaints through the statutory children’s complaint procedure. The complaints were considered carefully and were not upheld.
Other – Mr X tells me the Council has applied to court to evict him from his home due to rent arrears. The Ombudsman cannot investigate because the matter is before a court.
Mr X says his wife is claiming universal credit. Decisions on that type of benefit are taken by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) which is not a body within our jurisdiction.
Mr X says he had a power of attorney for his wife which he has lost. Mr X may seek advice from the office of the public guardian or court of protection. We have no jurisdiction to decide a dispute about a power of attorney.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council forced his wife to leave home, his son to attend school rather than be home educated and failed to communicate with him appropriately. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault and no injustice. Investigation will not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman