The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in child protection. Investigation would not be likely to lead to a worthwhile outcome. The substantive matter at the heart of the complaint concerns the residence and contact arrangements for children, which are for a court to decide, and many of the matters complained of are not separable from that. The remainder of the matters complained of do not involve a prospect of finding sufficient fault or injustice to warrant investigation or remedy beyond that already offered by the Council. Lastly, we could not achieve Mr X’s wish to change the law or dismiss Council officers.
The complaint
Mr X said the Council failed to deal properly with his complaint about a member of a child protection panel he caught out lying.
Mr X’s complaint to the Council was wider, with the Council considering 29 separate points.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended) 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 considered information provided by the complainant, which included his complaint correspondence with the Council and the Council’s investigation.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I have not replicated the Council’s approach of considering each point of complaint individually as many of them are closely related in nature.
My assessment
The substantive matter at the heart of the complaint is the Council’s actions regarding the safety, contact and residence of Mr X’s children after disclosures by those children in 2021. There had been a court order regulating contact and residence, and the children divided each week between Mr X and his former partner. The Council decided the children should be made subject the child protection plans, and there was further court action regarding the children.
Many of the points of complaint considered by the Council concern the judgements of social workers about Mr X and his family after the disclosures. These judgements are not separable from matters that were or could reasonably have been before a court. That includes whether a member of a child protection panel lied, and the evidence considered or ignored by social workers.
The Council’s own investigation found fault in several matters. Some of those are ones we cannot investigate because they are not separable from matters that were or could reasonably have been before a court. However, the remaining matters, relating principally to delays, poor communications, and a dispute about Mr X recording a meeting, are not ones where investigation by us would be likely to lead to a worthwhile outcome. We would be unlikely to recommend a significantly greater remedy for injustice caused by administrative failings than that the Council has already offered. And it is unlikely that investigation would lead to a finding of additional fault sufficient to warrant the investigation. For example. The children’s disclosures mean it is unlikely we would find the Council’s decision that they be subject to child protection plans a matter of fault rather than one of professional judgement. Among Mr X’s desired outcomes, we could not recommend a change in the law, which would be a matter for Parliament. And we have no authority to instruct the Council to dismiss staff.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome. This is because: Many matters complained of are not separable from matters that formed part of court action or could reasonably have done so, and we cannot investigate them; and There is not enough evidence of fault in the remaining matters, or injustice caused by fault, or significant injustice, or the prospect of a different outcome, or the likelihood of achieving the outcome Mr X wants, to warrant investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman