Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about post adoption services provided by the Council. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks. Additionally, any fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s complaint has not caused him a significant injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained there was unacceptable delay in providing post adoption support by the Council.
2. Mr X says that he remains dissatisfied after the Council considered his complaint at three stages. Mr X would like the removal of the managers involved, and for the Council to arrange a financial settlement that exceeds its existing offer.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome
• 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered the Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about drift and delay in accessing post adoption support from the Council.
8. The Council decided to consider Mr X’s complaint under its three-stage corporate complaints procedure.
9. On the information at hand, the Council should have considered Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint at all three stages of its corporate complaints procedure. The investigation appears robust based on the correspondence I have seen, including the complaint letters from Mr X. The Council accepted fault, apologised and identified service improvements.
10. The Council also offered a symbolic payment for the injustice to Mr X, including delay and frustration, and this was increased at stage three. The symbolic payment appears to be in line with our guidance.
11. Additionally, the time taken to complete the complaint was comparable to that of the children’s complaints procedure. Mr X has therefore not suffered significant injustice from the Council using the wrong procedure to consider his complaint.
12. The council upheld all but one of Mr X’s complaints, with the other being partially upheld. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
13. Mr X seeks the removal of staff. We cannot achieve this. How a Council chooses to use its staffing resources is at its discretion.
14. Mr X also seeks a financial settlement that exceeds our symbolic payment guidelines. We cannot instruct a Council to make a financial settlement. Only the court can do this.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcomes he wants. Additionally, any fault there may be as a result of how the Council investigated Mr X’s complaint, has not caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman