Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of child protection concerns. The Council has already apologised for an error it made and offered to record Mr X’s views on its records. We cannot achieve anything further and cannot give Mr X the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of child protection concerns about his child, Child Y. Mr X believes the Council has:

• acted in a biased and sexist way against him;
• failed to conduct visits when asked;
• prevented Mr X from contacting Child Y; and,
• threatened Mr X with removing his other children from his care if he did not comply.

2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused him and his family significant distress. Mr X wants the relevant staff involved in his case to be removed from their roles.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. When we find fault, we can recommend remedies for significant personal injustice, or to prevent future injustice, caused by that fault. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council has responded to Mr X’s concerns about its handling of child protection enquiries following an allegation of harm to Child Y. It has explained why contact between Mr X and Child Y was not appropriate while another agency investigated. The Council apologised to Mr X for incorrectly recording information about the other agency’s investigation and its affect on Mr X. The Council also offered to clearly record Mr X’s views on its case files where these differ from those made by relevant staff. The Council has met with Mr X to discuss his concerns. It has explained it could not add anything further to its previous complaint response when Mr X asked to escalate his complaints to stage two.
8. Mr X’s concerns about his ongoing contact with Child Y are not matters for us nor the Council to resolve. Any such concerns would fall under the jurisdiction of the courts to consider.
9. Mr X wants the relevant staff involved removed from their positions. Our role is to look into the Council’s actions as a corporate body, rather than to investigate an individual. If Mr X has concerns about the professionalism or conduct of an individual social worker, he can report his concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.
10. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and offered to record his views on its case files where these differ from those working on Child Y’s case.
11. Mr X believes the Council’s action to investigate child protection concerns was unwarranted. The Council has a legal duty to ensure it considers any allegations of harm or risk of harm to a child in its area. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions in this respect.
12. The action the Council has proposed to add Mr X comments to its files is of the type we would typically recommend in such cases. We would therefore be unlikely to achieve anything more if we were to investigate and find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman