The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: the Council accepted the findings and recommendations of an independent complaint investigation and agreed to revisit evidence collected during a child protection investigation. Mr F has since obtained further evidence himself which the Council has agreed to consider. Mr F has asked the Council to correct the information it holds and made a further complaint about delays in the process. He has also asked for compensation. The Council is still considering his complaints, so it is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to investigate now.
The complaint
Mr F complained to the Ombudsman because he was unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaint.
His adult step-children alleged he had harmed them when they were children. The Council followed child protection procedures. Mr F complained about: the evidence on which the Council based its conclusions; the Council’s requirement he should only have supervised contact with children, which remained in place 12 months after the allegations; and his dealings with the social workers.
The Council accepted the findings and recommendations of an independent complaint investigation and agreed to revisit evidence collected during the child protection investigation. However, the Council says Mr F refused its request for permission to contact the Police about the matter.
Since making his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr F has obtained further evidence from the Police which the Council has agreed to consider. He has also requested the Council correct the information it holds about him under procedures known as the ‘right to rectification’. The Council has agreed. However, Mr F is unhappy with the time the Council has taken and has complained again. He has also asked the Council to pay compensation for the impact of the child protection investigation on him.
What I have investigated I have considered the Council’s response to Mr F’s complaints. I have not investigated the allegations against Mr F.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered: information provided by Mr F; information provided by the Council, including its responses to his complaints.
I invited Mr F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.
What I found
Mr F lives with his wife and their children. Mr F’s adult step-children alleged he had harmed them when they were children.
The Council and the Police held a strategy discussion. The Council began a child protection investigation and the Police began a criminal investigation.
The Council asked Mr F not to have unsupervised contact with children. The Police imposed bail conditions.
The Council decided Mr F’s children were not at immediate risk of harm. It ended the child protection investigation and decided to support the children as children in need instead. However, it said Mr F should still not have unsupervised contact with children until the Police investigation reached a conclusion. It set out the agreement in a safety plan.
Mr F challenged the safety plan and the Council’s assessment of the risk he poses. He disputed the Council’s evidence, including previous names he had used, the ownership of child pornography found at an address he had lived at in a different city, and child protection concerns relating to his children from a previous relationship. He complained about his dealings with the social workers.
The Council responded to Mr F’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process. At the second stage, the Council appointed an independent investigator who conducted an investigation and produced a report.
The independent investigator noted the relationship between Mr F and the Council had been difficult, with both sides expressing concerns about the conduct of the other.
The independent investigator recommended the Council seek clarification from the Police about child pornography found at the house where Mr F used to live and revisit its assessment of the evidence.
The investigator also recommended the Council reviews whether the ‘safety plan’, which requires Mr F not to have unsupervised contact with children, is appropriate in light of its decision to close the case.
The Council accepted the independent investigator’s findings and recommendations.
Unhappy with progress, Mr F complained to the Ombudsman. He described the safety plan as a breach of his human rights. He said his dealings with the Council to ‘clear his name’ have caused him considerable stress.
Consideration The Ombudsman does not evaluate the evidence or consider the allegations made by Mr F’s step-children. This is the Council’s job. My role is to consider the Council’s response to Mr F’s complaint.
The independent investigator appointed by the Council carried out a thorough investigation. I accept her findings and recommendations. I do not intend to reinvestigate the complaints she considered.
I asked the Council to explain how it had implemented the independent investigator’s recommendations, and in particular her recommendation the Council should seek clarification about the child pornography.
The Council explained that it had asked Mr F for his permission to request further information from the Police, but he had refused. The Council said it needed Mr F’s permission because the case was no longer a child protection investigation. The Council said Mr F was only prepared to allow the Council to ask questions of the Police that he had prepared. The Council said it had not, therefore, been able to carry out the independent investigator’s recommendation.
The Council referred me to email correspondence with Mr F on 18 February in which the Council asked for his permission to contact the Police. In his reply, Mr F did not answer but instead repeated his dissatisfaction with the Council.
Mr F copied his reply to me, since by this time we had accepted his complaint for investigation. Recognising the seriousness of the complaints Mr F made, and the distress they caused him, I replied and suggested Mr F should draw a line under his dealings with the Council and allow the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. I went on to explain in a draft decision that the Council wanted his consent to approach the Police, and it was the fact he had not consented that was holding things up.
Mr F did not comment, but instead he repeated his dissatisfaction with the Council. When pressed, he said he had not refused the Council permission to contact the Police. In the meantime, Mr F had taken it upon himself to contact the Police directly.
Mr F subsequently provided me, and the Council, with new evidence from the Police. The Council agreed to reconsider the evidence. Mr F then made a ‘request for rectification’ which the Council also agreed to consider. In a recent telephone conversation with the Council, Mr F said he wanted compensation. The Council said it would consider his request.
I do not think it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider Mr F’s complaint at this time. I appreciate Mr F is frustrated at the time taken to reach this point, but I do not consider the Council to have obstructed the process. On the contrary, it has continued to deal with Mr F’s requests and complaints. Mr F has added a new complaint, but it relates directly to his original complaint about the child protection investigation. The Council has agreed to consider information Mr F obtained from the Police and his request for compensation. If Mr F remains dissatisfied once his has completed his dealings with the Council, he can complain to the Ombudsman.
Final decision
I have discontinued my investigation. The Council has agreed to consider information provided by the Police, Mr F’s request for ‘rectification’ and his request for compensation. If he remains dissatisfied once the Council has completed its consideration of his complaint and his correspondence with the Council has ended, he can complain to the Ombudsman again.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman