Council acted correctly over complaints

Shropshire Council acted correctly in how it dealt with a complaint over the actions of a social worker and how it handles complaints, the Ombudsman has ruled.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman cleared the authority of any wrongdoing, saying it could find no fault with how the council dealt with the complaint.

A man, known only as Mr X, complained to the council because he said the authority failed to recognise the conflict of interest in Ms Y, Mr X’s child’s grandmother, attending a child protection meeting in March 2016.

He said the council restricted his communications under its vexatious customers’ policy; the council failed to follow the statutory children’s complaints process; and the council did not deal with his complaints properly.

But the ombudsman threw out his complaints, saying it “finds no evidence of fault causing significant injustice in how the council dealt with Mr X’s complaints.”

Explaining the investigation, the Ombudsman said: “Mr X complained to the council that the children’s grandmother, Ms Y, attended his children’s Child Protection conference and she was friends with a core group member.

“Mr X felt this was a conflict of interest. The council told Mr X that Ms Y was not present.

“Mr X provided evidence to the Ombudsman to show Ms Y did attend the conference.

“In response to my enquiries, the council said Ms Y attended the first part of a core group meeting, about her other grandchildren.

“But, the council asked her to leave the second part of the meeting, that concerned Mr X’s children, and she did leave.

“The council has provided a record of the meeting. This reports Ms Y left the meeting.

“In response to my draft decision Mr X said Ms Y attended a meeting about his children and she was friends with a member, Mrs A.

“Mr X said Mrs A should not have been in the meeting as she had a conflict of interest.

“There is no evidence to show Ms Y attended the meeting about Mr X’s children.

“In December 2017 the council sent Mr X a warning letter under its vexatious customers’ procedure.

“Then, by letter of January 17, 2018, the council told Mr X it was restricting his contact under this procedure.

“The council told Mr X he had a right to appeal and it would review the decision in six months. Mr X contacted the Ombudsman as he was unhappy about the council’s decision. The Ombudsman said it would not investigate the complaint as there was no evidence of fault in the council’s actions.”

The report added: “In October 2016 Mr X complained to the council about a social worker.

“He said the social worker had made incorrect reports about him to the police and the social worker had shared information about him in breach of data protection laws.

“In response to my enquiries the council said it did not ignore complaints but Mr X sent many emails to many different people. Therefore, it took time to clarify the new issues that needed a response.

“I have reviewed the council’s chronology of contact with Mr X. This shows it responded to matters raised by Mr X up to January 2018.”
Concluding, the ombudsman said: “I have completed my investigation. This is because I find no evidence of fault causing significant injustice in how the council dealt with Mr X’s complaints.”