Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of bias by a social worker and false information in reports. The matters Mr X complains of are closely related to the issue of who should have care of and contact with a child of the family. This issue has been subject to court action and the matters complained of could reasonably have been raised in court.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council lied, wrote false reports, engaged in a witch, hunt, destroyed his family, put a child at risk, and defamed him. He also complained to the Council of a data breach.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B)).
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The complaint correspondence, which Mr X supplied, shows the Council investigated 16 points of complaint. These can be summarised as a social worker being biased against him and writing false reports, as well as allowing a child to return to Mr X’s ex-partner.
9. The Council’s second stage response to Mr X’s complaint quoted his responses to its own first response. This stated he had said of his former partner: “she lied in court, she accused me of domestic abuse”. It also named three types of court order it said Mr X had claimed a social worker had advised his ex-partner to seek. There was also a reference in the complaint correspondence to Mr X being unhappy about contact not being arranged, to which the Council’s response was that it could not force his mother to do this.
10. Taken together, the references in the complaint correspondence strongly suggest there has been court action concerning who is best placed to care for and have contact with a child or children. The views of social workers as expressed in reports are commonly requested by the family court when deciding those arrangements. It is therefore likely that the social worker’s actions and views were either raised in court or could reasonably have been raised there. We cannot investigate these matters.
11. Defamation of character is a matter only a court can decide. It would therefore be reasonable for Mr X to go to court if he is seeking a settlement for defamation.
12. Data breaches are a matter where the Information Commissioner’s office (ICO) has powers to decide there has been a breach and to impose penalties that we lack.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• We cannot investigate matters closely related to court action and which could therefore reasonably have been raised in court;
• Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use to pursue a claim for defamation; and
• The ICO is better placed than us to consider a complaint about an alleged data breach.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman