Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s actions led to a breach of a child arrangement order. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s actions meant his ex-partner and child did not keep the custody arrangements set out in a child arrangement order. He says he has not seen his child in over a year because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• 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))

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has a child arrangement order (CAO) which granted him and his former partner shared custody of their children. Mr X complains the Council gave incorrect advice to him and his ex-partner by stating that his child could choose who they wanted to live with, contrary to the CAO.
7. Mr X complained to the Council about the service provided by their advisor, and the Council upheld most of the complaint points raised. The Council noted the child had told the advisor they did not want to stay over with Mr X. While the Council accepted the email the officer sent should have been clearer about the impact of breaching a CAO, it considered there was no intention from the officer to disrupt or suggest the CAO should not be adhered to.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. The Council has recognised their advisor’s response could have been better worded, apologised, and agreed to appoint a different advisor. I am satisfied this is a suitable remedy.
9. Mr X seeks that the Council provide counselling to his child. However, we would need to be satisfied the Council’s actions solely caused Mr X’s former wife to go against the CAO. I do not consider there is sufficient evidence for us to make this finding and so we are not likely to recommend this as a remedy.
10. Finally, only the courts can decide whether a CAO has not been followed and take action to resolve the matter. Documents provided show court action regarding the CAO is ongoing. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to investigate any complaint about the Council’s actions regarding this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman