Summary: We will not investigate Dr Y’s complaint the Council’s poor handling led to a failed adoption. We could not add to the Council’s investigation of these complaints under all three stages of the statutory complaints process. We cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. Dr Y complains the Council rushed and poorly handled matters which led to the breakdown of her and her partner’s adoption of Looked After Children. Dr Y complains the Council:

• delayed collection of the children’s belongings, causing prolonged distress;
• lied and downplayed events during the adoption breakdown/disruption meeting;
• delayed progression of her stage three complaint;
• failed to conduct a thorough investigation of her concerns.

2. Dr Y says the whole situation has caused her and her partner significant distress and financial loss. She believes the Council should cover their financial losses and arrange privately funded counselling for Dr Y and her partner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
7. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question.
8. The Council concluded its consideration of Dr Y’s complaints under stage three of the statutory complaint process in October 2024. This included the complaint elements summarised in paragraph 1 above and other issues.
9. The Stage Three Review Panel altered the finding of one complaint from partially upheld to upheld. The Panel also concluded that elements of the stage two investigation could have been handled better. It found the independent Investigating Officer (IO) could have sought Dr Y and her partner’s signed agreement of the complaint prior to investigating. The Panel also felt one element of Dr Y and her partner’s complaint would have benefitted from wider investigation.
10. The Panel did not consider the shortfalls in the stage two investigation rendered the entire investigation unsafe or inappropriate. The Panel also fundamentally agreed there was no evidence the Council’s handling had caused the adoption to fail as Dr Y and her partner had alleged.
11. The Council has agreed with the findings reached by the stage two IO and the stage three Review Panel. It has completed the recommendations made and issued written apologies to Dr Y and her partner.
12. Dr Y has not provided details or evidence to show the Council’s complaint handling under the statutory process was so flawed that it warrants us investigating further. Her and her partner’s disagreement with the complaint investigation findings is not evidence of fault.
13. Further investigation of Dr Y’s complaints by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s responses. The investigation and consideration completed at stages two and three have been detailed and thorough. The remedial action the Council has offered to Dr Y and her partner appears reasonable given the faults identified. The Council has considered and declined Dr Y’s request for financial compensation. The level of compensation Dr Y is seeking is unlikely to be an amount within our gift to recommend, given we typically seek small remedy payments in recognition of injustice rather than awards for damages as the courts might.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Dr Y’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the Council’s responses, and we cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman