The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled an assessment for court proceedings regarding his child. The law prevents us from investigating the Council’s conduct related to court proceedings. We will not investigate anything that could be reasonably raised in court.
The complaint
Mr X says the Council treated him differently to his child Y’s other parent, made unrealistic recommendations to the court, did not communicate with him properly, and made inaccurate records of meetings.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) The courts have said we can decide not to investigate a complaint about any action by an organisation concerning a matter which the law says we cannot investigate. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin)) 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the social worker treated him unfairly by visiting him once and Y’s mother several times during the assessment period. He says this makes the assessment unfair. These actions relate to an assessment that was provided to the court. It was for the court to make the substantive decisions regarding the child. The points Mr X complains about are too close to matters that were, or reasonably could have been, raised in court for us to try to investigate.
Mr X says the social worker’s recommendations did not reflect both parents’ roles and were not in Y’s best interests. We cannot investigate this part of the complaint because the court was responsible for considering the recommendations, and we cannot investigate what happened in court.
Mr X says the social worker failed to communicate effectively cancelling visits and not returning his calls. The Council’s communication with Mr X is peripheral to the more substantive issues he complains about. It would be disproportionate for us to investigate this when we cannot investigate the substantive issue.
Mr X says that meeting records were not accurate. As this relates to matters considered in the court proceedings, Mr X could reasonably have raised this with the court if he believed the records affected decisions the court made.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The law prevents us investigating the Council’s conduct related to court proceedings. Other matters complained of are too close to matters that were, or could reasonably have been, raised in court for us to investigate.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman