Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the management of her adoption application. This is because Council has accepted that it was at fault and the complaint investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs B, complaints that the Council was at fault in its management of the adoption application she made with her husband.

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 their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs B and her husband applied to the Council to be considered as potential adopters. They are critical of aspects of the Council’s management of the application, the placement process and post-adoption support.
7. Mrs B complains about the arrangements for the initial discussion with a Council officer before making the application. She further complains that, once the application was made, she was compelled to obtain her own social services file against her will, and was not offered support when she viewed it. She argues the Council’s actions amount to discrimination on the grounds of her background and race.
8. The children identified for adoption were from another borough, so the home authority was responsible for most of the subsequent contact with Mrs B and her husband. But she does believe the Council was at fault in rushing the placement process and failing to provide initial post-adoption support.
9. Mrs B’s complaint has been considered by the Council and has been upheld in part. It has said it will use learning from the complaint in its consideration of adoption applications in future. In settlement of the complaint, it has offered its apology and a payment of £600.
10. Mrs B is unhappy with the Council’s response. Specifically, she is critical of the Council’s view that it cannot make a finding of discrimination. She also argues that, as well as saying it is unable to make such a finding, the officer responding to the complaint effectively dismissed the allegation. She contends that the Council is competent to investigate her complaint of discrimination and its decision not to do so leaves part of her complaint unaddressed.
11. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome. The Council has accepted that it was at fault and has offered a settlement which appears reasonable proportionate in the circumstances. Where fault is established and accepted, the Ombudsman will not normally consider the matter further.
12. Miss B contends that there is a significant public interest is pursuing the complaint further. I do not find that this is the case. The Council has accepted fault and has indicated that it will learn lessons from the complaint. This outcome is in line with what investigation by the Ombudsman would seek to achieve. That being the case, our intervention to establish whether the fault flowed from discrimination is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman