Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council closing a daycare centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council closed a daycare centre which her mother, Mrs Y, attended regularly. Ms X said the matter caused them both distress. Ms X also complained the Council poorly managed her complaint.

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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs Y regularly attended a daycare centre arranged by the Council.
6. In late 2024, the owner of the daycare centre building told the Council they had decided to develop the premises for other purposes. The Council therefore had to shut down its services in the building. In early 2025, the Council announced to the people who used the service, changes to the location of the daycare centre.
7. Following this, Ms X complained to the Council and as part of her complaint, she said the Council:
• had failed to consult with the people who used the service and their relatives before making changes;
• did not consider the negative impact the change would have on the people using the service; and
• had poorly planned the change which had left people feeling uncertain about ongoing support.
8. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint and said:
• it acknowledged the importance of a consultation where there were planned changes to a service however, in this case, the changes were beyond the Council’s control;
• before making an announcement, the Council wanted to secure an alternative location. In addition, the Council considered it was more appropriate to wait for plans to be in place before making an announcement as it did not want to increase anxiety and uncertainty for people who used the service;
• since the announcement, the Council had held regular meetings with the people who used the service to answer their questions to any concerns they had; and
• it had contacted the people who used the service to provide them with support in how to access the community in other ways in the interim. It had also allocated each person with a key worker to support them with their individual needs.
9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. The Council's decision to relocate the service was driven by circumstances outside its control. The Council took appropriate steps to support those affected by the change, including communicating with service users, holding regular meetings, providing information about the transition and allocating key workers to offer individual support. Therefore, we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council managed the relocation.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive issue of Ms X’s complaint, we will also not investigate her complaint about how the Council managed her complaint. This is because it would not be a good use of public money to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman