The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s children’s case. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, and we could not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council stopped him seeing his children and had him removed from his property. He says these actions were based on inadequate investigation and inaccurate information.
Mr X says he has not had contact with his children for several months and he has been put to a financial detriment due to needing to rent a home. He says the matter has caused him significant distress and he has not been able to access work items from his property.
Mr X wants to be allowed back into his property and to see his children. He also wants significant compensation.
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s complaint concerns an allegation in late 2023 that led to his arrest. He was interviewed by the police and released on bail, with conditions including that he was not to go to the family property.
On receiving a child protection referral, the Council carried out a child protection enquiry. Mr X says the Council did not properly investigate the matter and that it should have interviewed professionals involved with him. He also says the Council lied about him. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It gathered information from several sources, including the children themselves and agencies involved with them. A medical examination advised an injury suffered by one of the children was non-accidental. The Council placed the children on a child protection plan. There is insufficient evidence the Council relied on inaccurate information in coming to this decision. Mr X may disagree with the Council’s view, but this does not mean it was at fault.
Mr X was primarily prevented by the bail conditions from returning to the property. These are the responsibility of the police, not the Council, and are not a matter we can consider. Only the police can decide what bail conditions are appropriate.
The safety plan the Council put in place includes that Mr X should stay away from the family home until he has been properly risk assessed and has undertaken further work to address specific issues. The plan is still active, and these actions have not yet been completed. The Council has given Mr X the option of a family member retrieving belongings from the property on his behalf.
The Council’s role is to decide what action is necessary to protect children who are experiencing, or at risk of, significant harm. Its responsibility is to the children, not to Mr X. Given that Mr X left the family home and has largely complied with the recommendation to stay away from the family home, the Council has not needed to pursue any more formal action such as court intervention. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this respect.
Mr X says his solicitor told him that he could legally return to the family home at any point. Should circumstances change and the children be judged at risk of significant harm, the Council and the police will be entitled to decide based on their professional judgement whether further steps are necessary.
We cannot decide the children should live with Mr X or have contact with him. This is a decision that only the courts can make. It is open to Mr X to seek advice from his solicitor about the option of applying for a Child Arrangements Order.
We also could not achieve the significant financial remedy Mr X seeks. Our role is not to assess economic losses or award compensation. Where this is a person’s primary goal we normally signpost them to the courts. Should Mr X wish to pursue a compensation claim, it is open to him to seek legal advice.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and we could not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman