The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a social worker disclosing Mr X’s address and other actions in dealing with him. These matters are either not separable from matters connected to the conduct of court proceedings, or they could reasonably be raised in court.
The complaint
Mr X said a social worker included his name on documents sent to his ex-partner and seen by a person who posed a risk of harm to him. He said the social worker had redacted the addresses of other persons because of the known risk from this person. He said there has been persons outside his home, that he had had to inform the police, and that he was scared and wanted to move.
Mr X also said the social worker had been aggressive to him, and that she had recorded information about him in her reports that was not correct. He wanted the social worker reprimanded and corrected reports produced.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The principal matter of which Mr X has complained is a serious one. However, the relevant issue for us is whether we have jurisdiction to investigate this matter, or any of the other matters of which he has complained.
Mr X supplied sufficient of his complaint correspondence with the Council to show that the documents including his address are very likely to be the social worker’s report of her assessment for a family court case. These are shared with both parties before the case and supplied to the court as part of the court process.
Our jurisdiction ends where a court is first approached about a matter. And we do not have jurisdiction to investigate matters that have or could reasonably be brought before a court. We cannot therefore consider whether the social worker should have redacted Mr X’s address. That limit also extends to the opinions formed by a social worker, and to whether the social worker has treated a person fairly in forming them. This is because those opinions and the way in which the social worker formed them are for the court to judge. The seriousness of the matters alleged does not affect this jurisdictional limit.
Final decision
We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint because: the issues of the disclosure of Mr X’s address and the content of the social worker’s reports are not separable from the conduct of a court case; and it would be reasonable for Mr X to raise the remaining matters in court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman