Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a work placement arranged via the Council because we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to safeguard him and other adults who are vulnerable whilst participating in a work placement arranged via the Council. He said the matter caused him anxiety and distress. Mr X wants the Council to review its service to prevent ongoing fault. He also wants the Council to provide him with a financial remedy for the injustice caused.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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 works for an organisation via the Council’s Supported Employment Service for people with neurodevelopmental needs and learning disability needs.
6. Mr X complained about the conduct of staff at the organisation. In response to his concerns, the Council told Mr X it was not able to consider concerns relating to staff at the organisation as it had no authority to do so. It said only the employer could consider such concerns.
7. We could not add to the Council’s investigation because the concerns relate to the conduct of staff employed by the organisation, rather than Council employees. The Council does not have managerial or disciplinary responsibility for those staff and therefore cannot investigate or determine whether their conduct was appropriate.
8. Mr X also complained that the Council failed to ensure the organisation was suitable for people who are vulnerable. He said staff discouraged other participants in the programme from raising safeguarding concerns. In response, the Council said it would consider Mr X’s concerns as part of a wider service review. It told Mr X that it would not be able to share the investigation with him due to staff confidentiality.
9. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint as the Council said it would consider his concerns which is what we would expect it to do. We also accept it cannot share details of its investigation due to confidentiality.
10. Mr X said he was expected to work unpaid hours. The Council explained that the unpaid hours form part of an alternative recruitment process designed to be more inclusive and less reliant on traditional applications and interviews. The voluntary work trial gives participants like Mr X the opportunity to demonstrate their skills through practical tasks.
11. We will also not investigate this part of Mr X's complaint. The Council explained the purpose of the work trial arrangement and there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it operates its programme.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman