The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council investigated under the statutory complaints procedure to justify our investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council wrongly assessed the risk of domestic abuse in his family. He said the Council discriminated against him based on his nationality and religion. He also said a Social Worker’s contact with his daughter caused her distress.
Mr X wants the Council to confirm its assessment was wrong and to remove all inaccuracies on its records. He wants the Council to take disciplinary action against the social workers, who he believes acted inappropriately and for them to apologise to his wife and children.
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council started a Child and Family assessment after it received a referral about Mr X’s family from another agency. Whilst completing that assessment, the Council assessed Mr X’s children might be at risk of harm and following a strategy meeting, decided to hold an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC). Mr X subsequently complained to the Council about the steps it took leading up to the ICPC.
The Council considered Mr X’s complaints through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The stage two Investigating Officer met with Mr and Mrs X twice to agree the statement of complaint. This included 16 headings. The Investigating Officer then used case records, interviews with staff, and evidence provided by Mr and Mrs X investigate the complaint.
The stage two investigation upheld seven complaints; made ‘no finding’ on four complaints and did not uphold five complaints. It found that the Council had delayed in responding to Mr X’s complaint. It offered a financial remedy of £500 for the injustice caused. It also set out service improvements the Council intended to complete.
Mr X asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage three. He said the Council had failed to arrange an advocate for his children at stage two; and that the Council’s Complaint’s Manager had commented on the stage two report.
The stage three Panel agreed with the stage two findings. It said the Council could have done more to establish the views of Mr X’s children. However, did not find that omission would have affected the outcome of the stage two investigation. The Panel reviewed the Complaint’s Managers comments and found these were to improve the readability of the final report and were not about the findings.
Following the stage three panel, Mr X wrote to the Council with further concerns. He said the: Council had not addressed the most important parts of his complaint.
Stage three panel was not independent.
The Council disagreed and said Mr X had lots of opportunity to say whether it had addressed his complaints. It said the Panel was independent. It said if Mr X confirmed what information in its assessment was inaccurate it could rectify. It explained that rectification applied to factually inaccurate information and not professional opinion.
Although Mr X is unhappy with the outcome of the Council’s response, we will not investigate this complaint further. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council completed its stage two investigation to justify our involvement. I am also satisfied the stage three Panel and the Council’s stage three adjudication letter addressed Mr X’s outstanding concerns. It has explained how Mr X can ensure his views and recorded on the Council’s case records; made service improvements and provided a financial remedy for delays. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Although Mr X has complained to the Ombudsman the Council discriminated against him; this was not part of the complaint investigated by the Council as agreed with the Investigating Officer.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman