Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication after Mr B and his partner adopted a child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or that Mr B has suffered a significant personal injustice. Also, we could not achieve anything worthwhile by investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained the Council called him in August 2023 about the possibility of adopting the half sibling of his adopted daughter. He says the call was unexpected, unwanted, and upsetting, particularly as Mr B and his partner were getting no support from the Council about problems they were experiencing with their daughter. Mr B says he originally complained in September 2023 and was told a senior manager would contact him to discuss his complaint. No-one from the Council called Mr B until January 2024 and it only issued a final complaint response in February 2024.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr B says the phone call from the Council was unwanted and left him distressed. The Council has explained in its complaint response that it has a duty to ensure it contacts sibling adopters to see if they want to be considered as potential carers or explore family time. It also explained its reasons for doing this via phone calls rather than letters. While I recognise Mr X found the call unwelcome, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions for us to investigate.
6. Mr B then complained to the Council about the phone call, and he says it did not contact him about this for months. The Council has apologised for this. It says that it did previously try to contact Mr B about his complaint. Whilst Mr B may have experienced communication issues with the Council, it did try to quicky resolve his complaint, albeit unsuccessfully. I recognise the distress the events caused Mr B. But we will not normally investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue if we are not going to look at the issue which led to the original complaint. Any injustice from the Council’s complaint handling is not significant enough to deviate from this position.
7. Mr B also says that at the time of the call, he and his partner were experiencing problems with their daughter and were not getting any support from the Council. The Council is now working with Mr B and his family to source therapy through the adoption support fund. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or that Mr B has suffered a significant personal injustice. Also, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman