Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault in the way the Council considered a complaint about the end of a pre-adoption placement. This is because it is not a good use of public money to investigate complaint processes where the substantive matter does not warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Ms B, complains that the Council’s investigation of her complaint about the removal of two children from her care was flawed and was subject to unreasonable delay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant has had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council placed two children with Ms B and her then partner in a pre-adoption placement. Ms B says that, when their relationship ended, she and her partner intended to continue with the adoption on the basis of a shared care agreement. The Council however decided to end the placement.
7. The Council informed Ms B of its intention to end the placement, giving two days’ notice of the children’s removal. Ms B contends that this notice period was unlawful. Given the lack of time available, she felt compelled to obtain an injunction to prevent the removal of the children, so the assessment process could continue.
8. When Ms B subsequently decided to withdraw from the assessment process she agreed to the lifting of the injunction. The children then returned to the Council’s care.
9. Ms B made a complaint about the Council’s actions, which was considered under the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. Ms B is critical of how the complaint procedure was conducted.
10. At Stage 2 of the complaint procedure, significant parts of the complaint were upheld. Ms B accepted the findings. Regarding the complaint about the notice for the end of the placement, the Investigating Officer did not conclude that the Council’s actions were demonstrably unlawful. But she did find they amounted to fault. In settlement of this aspect of the complaint, the Investigating Officer recommended that the Council consider reimbursing the legal costs Ms B incurred in connection with the injunction.
11. The Council considered the Investigation Officer’s recommendations and accepted most of them. However, it did not accept that it should reimburse Ms B’s legal costs. On this basis, Ms B escalated her complaint to the final stage. At Stage 3, the Review Panel recommended that the Council reimburse half the itemised legal costs. The Council has accepted this recommendation.
12. Ms B complains about the way the complaint has been investigated. She believes the Stage 1 response was flawed and that the Council should have gone straight to Stage 2, as she requested. She also contends that the process took too long, and she was put to unnecessary time, trouble and expense in attempting to access Stage 2 of the procedure.
13. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint. This is because, with regard to the substantive issues which led to the complaint, we could not add anything significant to the investigation already carried out and there is no prospect that our involvement would lead to a different outcome.
14. The complaint documents show that the Investigating Officer properly considered the issues and reached reasonable and defensible conclusions. It was primarily the fact that the Council did not agree to reimburse the legal costs which prompted escalation to Stage 3. At Stage 3, the Review Panel concluded the Council should reimburse half of the costs. That recommendation is reasonable in the circumstances and appears to have been reached after proper consideration of the facts, and with Ms B’s input. That being the case, there would no grounds for us to investigate the outcome.
15. We will not investigate whether there was fault within the complaint procedure. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures in isolation, if the substantive issues do not fall to us to investigate. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This because it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling where the substantive matter does not warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman