The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of a Council’s child protection report as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council’s child protection report contains inaccurate information about him. He says a Council officer incorrectly said they were a social worker yet the Council has not taken disciplinary action. And he is unhappy with the Council’s complaints investigation and complaint handling.
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 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), as amended, section 34(B)) We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended) When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council accepted one comment in its report did not contain enough detail. It apologised and agreed to address this. The Council otherwise said its report accurately recorded what Mr X had said. Further investigation by us would not achieve a different outcome. This is because where Mr X’s account of conversations differs from the Council’s and there is no independent recording, we cannot say what was more likely to have been said.
Mr X says a Council officer referred to themselves as a social worker in error but the officer disputes this. Where it is one person’s word against the other, we cannot say even on balance, that one account is more likely. Further investigation by us would not achieve a different outcome. And we cannot investigate or comment on disciplinary matters.
It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman