The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to her and a child she looked after from late 2020 to early 2021. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is about a matter that has been subject to court proceedings. We will not consider Ms X’s complaint about a lack of support from the Council when she was looking after the child. This part of the complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about the Council’s actions in relation to her and a child in the Council’s care who she looked after from late 2020 to early 2021. The matter was subject to court proceedings in 2021.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X complains the Council failed to support and engage with her when she was caring for a teenaged child from late 2020 until early 2021, when he moved to a residential children’s home.
Ms X says the Council then tried to end her contact with the child via a combination of innuendo, lies and exaggeration. The case was subject to court proceedings. An application was made for an injunction against Ms X after concerns were raised about her behaviour. Ms X made an undertaking not to contact the child for six months. She was served a Child Abduction Warning Notice.
Ms X says the Council delayed in allowing court ordered contact with the child and acted to prevent her from having contact with him. The Council has acknowledged some delay here and has apologised to Ms X for this.
Ms X says the Council’s false reports led to her being referred to her professional body and have cost her over £8,000 in legal fees. She says it has also affected her professional reputation and limited the type of role she can apply for. She would like the Child Abduction Notice to be rescinded.
Final decision
We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because the crux of the matter lies outside our jurisdiction because it has been considered in court proceedings. The law prevents us from considering such matters. We have no discretion to do so. This restriction also applies to reports that are provided to the court. A complaint about the Council not providing court ordered contact is also a matter for the courts rather than this office.
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a lack of support at the time she was caring for the child because it lies outside our jurisdiction. This is because it is about a matter Ms X has known about for more than 12 months. There are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now, and ultimately the matter progressed to court proceedings where this could have been raised. Any dissatisfaction with the Council’s view and reports could and should have been raised as part of the proceedings before the court made a decision. We cannot consider it.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman