The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We should not investigate this complaint about a social worker’s actions during child protection intervention. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice caused by the alleged faults.
The complaint
Mr X complains about a social worker’s action during child protection intervention. He complains they: Provided incorrect information about legal representations.
Unnecessarily involved themselves in the parenting assessment and his partner’s cognitive assessment.
Were intimidating by suggesting they were not adhering to social distancing.
Failed to wear a face mask during a visit.
Forwarded personal information to other professionals without consent.
Tried to influence the opinions of other professionals.
Delayed in arranging meetings and distributing documents.
Mr X also complains about delays in the Council’s complaint handling.
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr X provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision, which I considered before making the final decision.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint because there is limited significant injustice and fault.
With regards to the alleged fault of the Council providing incorrect information about legal representation, Mr X said they realised quickly the advice was incorrect and they did not act on the advice given. Therefore, there is no evidence the incorrect information significantly impacted on Mr X or his partner as it did not affect their approach or position.
On the fault, which the Council has accepted, that the social worker failed to wear a face mask during a visit. Mr X refers to what could have happened, in that they could have been exposed to COVID-19. However, there is no evidence Mr X or his partner was. The Ombudsman looks to remedy injustice caused by an alleged fault, not potential injustice.
Mr X also alleges the social worker tried to influence the opinions of other professionals. However, there is no evidence the professionals were persuaded to change their opinions by the social worker. In the example Mr X provides, the health worker was not persuaded to change their review periods despite the social worker trying to persuade them otherwise. Therefore, the alleged fault has not caused any injustice as it did not affect how other professionals dealt with Mr X and his partner.
With regards to the delays alleged by Mr X, again, there is no evidence this had any impact on the decisions made by the Council. There is also no evidence the delays prevented Mr X and his partner from engaging with the Council and the child protection process fully. Therefore, the alleged fault is unlikely to have caused any significant injustice.
Finally, the data sharing matters Mr X complains about would be for the Information Commissioner’s office to consider.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice caused by the alleged faults.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman