The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B and Mr C’s complaint about the Council allegedly not taking the appropriate action when Mr C’s son sustained two injuries while in the care of his mother and her partner. This is because we could not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out.
The complaint
Mrs B and Mr C complain the Council did not take the appropriate action and hold a strategy meeting after Mr C’s child sustained two injuries while in the care of his mother and her partner. They say there was a lack of support from the Council and it caused their family stress and anxiety, and they have also spent money taking the matter to court. They would like the Council to improve its communication and record-keeping and ensure that it safeguards all children going forward.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide: 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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainants and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr C says his son sustained two head injuries while in the care of his son’s mother and her partner. Mr C had concerns about the mother’s care and made a referral to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). He says the Council should have held a strategy meeting but it did not. The Council says it considered holding a strategy meeting, but the child’s mother gave it an explanation for the child’s injuries, so it considered a child and family assessment was more appropriate and a strategy meeting was not necessary.
There have also been related court proceedings around the arrangements for Mr C’s children, as he applied to the courts for a child arrangements order. His children now live with him and Mrs B, and they supervise the children’s contact with their mother. So any risk to his children from their mother and her partner do not warrant further action by the Council; Mrs B and Mr C supervise any contact and the courts have accepted that is enough. The Council is entitled to decide that Mrs B and Mr C are able to safeguard the children and it did not need to intervene.
The Council’s complaint investigation recognised there were communication issues, and it says it has learned from the complaint. However there is not enough evidence to show the communication or record-keeping issues in themselves caused significant injustice to warrant investigation.
As the complaint has completed the statutory complaints procedure, the question for the Ombudsman is whether it is likely that investigation by us would add anything significant, or lead to a different outcome. The complaint documents show the Council’s findings are evidence based and there is no indication of fault in the way they were made even if Mrs B and Mr C remain unhappy with them. In the circumstances, it is not likely that further investigation would add anything significant to the investigation already carried out. A further investigation is not therefore warranted.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs B and Mr C’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add anything significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman