Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his child’s respite provision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council cancelled respite provision for his child and accused Mr X and the family of using inappropriate language towards staff. He said the matter caused him and the family distress. He wants the Council to accept it acted with fault, apologise and explain why the provision was cancelled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s child received respite provision from a provider which was located within Essex County Council however, Thurrock Council commissioned the provision itself.
6. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council explained to Mr X that as Thurrock Council commissioned the provision, he would need to redirect his complaint to Thurrock Council.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault by Essex County Council. Thurrock Council is the body responsible for Mr X’s child’s respite provision. It is open to Mr X to raise his concerns with Thurrock Council.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman