The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to recent safeguarding allegations against her son. The Council upheld it could have supported her son better following the allegations. It has apologised to Mrs X and acted to improve its service. Further investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. It was for the police to investigate the allegations and we cannot investigate the actions of the police.
The complaint
Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide her son, Y, with sufficient support following safeguarding allegations against him. She says this has caused her son unnecessary distress that has impacted their whole family. She wants the Council hold staff accountable compensate the family and learn lessons from its failings.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X’s son, Y, was arrested in late 2023 following safeguarding allegations against him from another young person. The allegations were later found to be false.
Mrs X complained to the Council about its role in the safeguarding investigation. She said the Council had failed to support and protect her son and he had been arrested unnecessarily following a poor initial investigation. She said the Council’s social workers had also behaved insensitively to her family and Y should have received support from the Council sooner in the process.
The Council accepted its social workers had not been sensitive enough and that Y should have received support sooner. It apologised and said it would ensure lessons were learnt from the incident. However, it said its role following the allegations was not to determine if they were true or recommend action to the police. It was for the police to decide if Y should be arrested.
Mrs X remained unhappy. She said the social workers should be disciplined and the Council could have prevented Y’s arrest by working closer with the police.
We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has apologised for its response and taken steps to ensure its staff communicate with more sensitivity in future. Further investigation by us would be unlikely to add to this or lead to a different outcome. Mrs X wants the Council to discipline its staff, but this is not something we can achieve. The decision to arrest Y was made by the police. The police are better placed to consider this aspect of the complaint. We cannot investigate the actions of the police.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because further investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. We cannot investigate the actions of the police.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman