Summary: We will not investigate these complaints about the person who responded to Miss X’s complaint being also the subject of part of the complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the substantive child protection matters underlying the complaint to warrant investigation. Investigating how the Council dealt with Miss X’s complaint about them would not lead to any worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss x said there was a conflict of interest because the person who responded to her complaints was one of those whose actions she complained of.
2. She said the Council caused stress in her pregnancy and affected her privacy and well-being.

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 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
• 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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council took child protection action when Miss X was pregnant because it was worried her unborn child was at risk. It felt she had resumed or might resume contact with a former partner. The Council imposed monitoring to which Miss X objected. She also objected to the conclusions of an assessment it carried out. Child protection is the Council’s primary duty where there is reason to believe a child, including an unborn child, may be at risk of suffering significant harm. A few weeks after the start of child protection action, the former partner was reported to have been involved in an incident with Miss X. This supports the view that the Council’s earlier and subsequent decisions about child protection were matters of professional opinion rather than likely fault. Miss X’s complaints about who authored the responses to her complaints are ancillary to that, and investigation of the Council’s complaint handling would not be a good use of public resources.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaints because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the substantive matters underlying the complaints to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman