Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a child protection matter. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions to warrant our further involvement and investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to accept the finding of an independent investigator that it had acted with fault in a child protection enquiry by not involving him and his wife.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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:

• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The context of this complaint is that the Council had substantiated safeguarding concerns after a foster child formerly looked after by Mr X and his wife made an allegation about his time there. The Council had already removed children fostered by the couple.
7. The investigator was dealing with the second stage of the complaints process. He found the Council should have given Mr X and his wife the opportunity to respond to what the child alleged.
8. Child protection is not arranged to compare accounts of events, but to reduce or eliminate risk of harm to children. There is no requirement to provide adults with a right of reply, particularly where there is a risk that doing so might cause further harm to the child.
9. In this case, the Council had given a reason why it had not informed Mr X about the allegation, which came after it had already removed children from his care. That was a decision it was entitled to take. Given that the safeguarding enquiry heard that the child’s sibling and his school corroborated the child’s account, the Council was also entitled to substantiate the concern. I note the investigator accepted that the Council did not have inform Mr X. That the investigator nonetheless took the view that the Council should have acted differently by informing Mr X of the allegation does not change the fact that the Council could decide not to do this as it had no duty to do so. It is unlikely that an investigation by us would lead to a different or worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not sufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions to warrant our further involvement. Investigating would be unlikely to lead to a different or worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman