Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions after it received a child protection referral. A lack of evidence concerning a phone call means doing so would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X said a social worker displayed an unprofessional approach and attitude. He said she told multiple untruths, and he believes the Council has corruptly protected the social worker. He wanted a proper investigation rather than the Council simply interviewing the social worker and believing what she said.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint contained the transcript of a safeguarding referral from the ambulance service. This response confirmed the Council had held a safeguarding strategy meeting, but had decided there were no child protection concerns. It stated that a social worker was to contact the family to carry out an assessment. The correspondence shows Mr X declined a visit, and the Council took no further action.
6. It was not fault for the Council to ask to carry out an assessment, and Mr X could refuse to accept a visit.
7. The issue at hand was what was said on the phone between the social worker and Mr X and his wife when she called the family. Mr X said the social worker made claims about concerns that were untrue and that her story changed when he challenged her, and she could not back up what she said. He says it is unacceptable that the Council simply interviewed her and believed what she said rather than checking more thoroughly.
8. The Council’s reply stated there was no recording of the call. It also stated that social workers often use their own mobile phones.
9. Investigation by us would only be warranted if there was a realistic prospect of us finding fault. There is no realistic prospect of establishing what was said during the call in the absence of corroborating evidence.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome, or add to the Council’s own investigation, or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman