The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker and delay by the Council in informing Ms X about the result of a viability assessment to care for a child in her wider family. The social worker’s conduct is not separable from the decision she made about where the child should live, which has been or will be subject to the decision of a court. The delay in informing Ms X did not cause sufficient injustice separable from the decision itself to warrant investigation.
The complaint
Ms X said a social worker delayed by four months telling her of a decision about who was best able to care for a child in her wider family. She said the viability assessment the social worker carried out was discriminatory and inaccurate, containing discrepancies.
Ms X wanted investigation into the viability assessment, the social worker’s actions, and the granting of a special guardianship order. She also wanted compensation and for the social worker to be disciplined.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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) 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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or 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, or (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The principal issue here is the viability assessment. That is, has been, or could reasonably be subject to proceedings in a court of law. That is because a viability assessment is prepared by a social worker before a decision about where and with whom a child should live. That decision is always subject to a court order. The viability assessment is thus not separable from the decision of a court. It does not affect our jurisdiction even if Ms X did not participate in any court action.
The only matter separable from the issue of the views reached in the viability assessment is the acknowledged delay in telling Ms X about it. That was fault by the Council. However, the injustice caused by that delay was limited. The absence of the delay would not have changed the decision.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the principal matter involved in the complaint is not separable from matters that are, were, or could reasonably have formed part of court proceedings. The remaining matter of delay is not one where investigation by us is warranted by the likely injustice, and where we would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome, or the outcome Ms X wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman