The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about assessments made by the Council in response to child protection referrals it received. This is because the complaint is late, there are other agencies better placed to deal with much of its substance, and we cannot achieve most of the outcomes the complainant is seeking.
The complaint
I will refer to the complainant as Mr D.
Mr D complains the Council completed two child and family assessments, which were triggered by false allegations against him and his partner. Mr D says the assessments included unreliable evidence and drew conclusions which were unreasonable and inconsistent.
Mr D seeks training and guidance for the Council, disciplinary actions to be taken against relevant officers, an award of damages, and for the false information to be expunged from the Council’s records.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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) We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I reviewed Mr D’s correspondence with the Council, and the child and family assessments the Council completed.
I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.
What I found
Mr D’s partner has two children from a previous relationship. She shares parental duties with the children’s father, but she a very difficult relationship with him. The children are mixed race.
In March 2021 the Council received a safeguarding referral about the children, which included an allegation Mr D had made racist remarks towards them. The Council allocated the case to a student social worker, who completed a child and family assessment. Although the outcome of the assessment was that no action was needed, the social worker recorded one of the children had made comments in interview which could be read to support the allegation about Mr D.
In June the Council carried out a review of the assessment. The review concluded the social worker’s approach to interviewing the children was flawed, and noted there was no objective evidence to support the allegation against Mr D.
Then, in September, the Council received another safeguarding referral from the children’s father, relating to an incident at his home. The Council completed a second assessment, which recommended the children be subject to ‘Child in Need’ plans, in part to help the children in “harnessing their cultural identity”.
In December Mr D made a formal complaint to the Council about the assessments. He complained the student social worker had not been properly supervised and had been pursuing an agenda, and that, despite the Council agreeing the racism allegations were unfounded, the Child in Need plans recommended during the second assessment appeared to revive the allegations.
The Council responded substantively to Mr D’s complaint in April 2023. It said its records made clear it had not substantiated the allegations, but merely investigated them; although the Council agreed, again, the student social worker’s questioning of the children had been inappropriate and apologised for this. However, it explained she no longer worked for the Council and so it could not take any action against her. The Council also noted Mr D was seeking correction of its records, but it explained it could not act upon this request because he did not have legal parental responsibility for the children.
Mr D then escalated his complaint to stage 2, but the Council declined to investigate any further because it could not achieve what he wanted. At this point Mr D referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.
Analysis For several reasons, I do not consider we should continue our investigation of Mr D’s complaint.
First, the law says a person should approach us within 12 months of becoming aware of the substantive issue they wish to complain about. In this case, the substantive issues are the assessments, which the Council completed in March and September 2021 respectively; and so Mr D should have approached us with his complaint by September 2022 at the latest. However, he did not do so until January 2024, meaning his complaint is over a year late.
The law does give us some discretion to disapply this time limit; but to do so, we must first be satisfied there is a good reason for the delay, and also that it remains possible to meaningfully investigate the complaint.
Mr D says he contacted the Ombudsman in mid-2022 to enquire about making a complaint, and was told he must first complete the Council’s complaint process before we could investigate. He has explained he registered his complaint with us within days of receiving the Council’s final response, which I note is true.
However, while the law says we must allow councils a reasonable opportunity to respond to a complaint before we can investigate, this does not mean complainants should wait indefinitely for a council to respond before referring their complaint to us. We advise complainants to contact us if they have received no response within 12 weeks of making their complaint, at which point we may contact the council ourselves to enquire about its progress, or just accept the complaint for investigation.
I am not persuaded, therefore, that this provides a good reason for such a long delay.
Second, there are other agencies better placed to deal with much of Mr D’s complaint, and we cannot achieve most of the outcomes he is seeking anyway.
I note the student social worker who completed the first assessment no longer works for the Council. I am aware she remains a registered social worker, and I understand this causes Mr D concern, but it is only the Council which is in our jurisdiction here, and the Council has no control over social worker registration.
The appropriate body to investigate Mr D’s concerns about the social worker, and any other involved in the case, is Social Work England. This is the statutory regulator for social workers and has powers to consider their fitness to practice, which we do not.
Either way, the law prevents us from involving ourselves in personnel matters, including disciplinary investigations. An investigation by us would therefore not provide this outcome anyway – our investigations look at the actions of a council as a corporate body, not the actions of individual staff members.
Mr D says he is seeking damages from the Council, which I understand are because he feels its actions were defamatory. However, defamation is a civil legal matter which can only be decided by a court. And while we can, and regularly do, recommend financial remedies for complainants’ distress, arising from council fault, these are typically very modest figures, and do not amount to damages or compensation of the type a court can award.
Finally, Mr D also says he wishes the Council’s records to be amended and/or expunged to remove what he considers to be defamatory and libellous information.
As the Council has noted, this matter is complicated by the fact Mr D does not have legal parental responsibility for the children. Even putting this point to one side though, we generally expect complainants to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if their complaint is that a council holds inaccurate information, or any other aspect of data protection. The ICO is the dedicated statutory body to consider such complaints, and unlike us, has the power to enforce its decisions. We would only consider a complaint of this type where it is not possible to meaningfully separate it from a wider complaint, which does fall into our jurisdiction.
In summary, therefore, I do not consider we have a reason to disapply the time restriction on our jurisdiction. And, even if we did, we could not provide most of what Mr D is seeking from his complaint. Taking these points together, it is not appropriate or proportionate for us to investigate Mr D’s complaint, and so I will discontinue my investigation.
Final decision
Subject to further comments by Mr D and the Council, I have discontinued my investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman