Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers in dealing with Mr X. The substantive matter is one we have already considered and found we have no legal authority to investigate. The remaining matters are separable from that, but they are not likely to have involved sufficient fault or created a separable injustice to Mr X that would warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council’s own investigation found it misled him, was biased against him, and treated him differently.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has repeatedly asked us to investigate the actions of the Council in writing a s.37 court report about him. That matter and the Council’s actions concerning it are ones we cannot investigate as they are not separable from matters that were before a court. His recent complaint to the Council again raised that issue. However, it remains beyond our legal powers to investigate it, or to play any role concerning Mr X’s contact with his children. Only a court could deliver the outcome Mr X is seeking. As we have already considered this matter and decided we cannot investigate, it is an invalid complaint.
6. There were other separable matters of which Mr X complained to the Council. The Council accepted a meeting with Mr X was arranged and then cancelled. It also accepted it was not correct that a social worker’s camera was said not to be working when she instead did not wish to have a video call with Mr X. Injustice flowing from these matters would not be enough to warrant our involvement.
7. This is the more so as, on the balance of probabilities, Mr X’s own actions contributed to those of the Council. The correspondence I have seen states Mr X’s approach to staff was abusive. On the balance of probabilities, this seems more likely than not as he displayed this behaviour in correspondence with our investigator in a recent previous case, 22 009 694, to the extent that we had to warn him that we would ourselves block contact if his behaviour continued. For a Council officer to choose to avoid face-to-face video contact, or for a face-to-face meeting to be cancelled would not be matters of fault where the member of the public involved had previously been abusive. It follows that investigation by us of these matters would be unlikely to find fault in the form of bias or discrimination against Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice from fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman