Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services department. The Ombudsman is not able to award compensation in the way a court might, so we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants. With regard to matters other than the Council’s financial remedy, Mrs X has no remaining injustice which is significant enough to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains about the Council’s children’s services department, and its decision to hold a strategy discussion to consider an allegation against her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or if the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and gave them the opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

4. Mrs X complained to the Council in 2018. She said the Council had carried out a section 47 (child protection) enquiry and had sent social workers to her home, without evidence to do so.
5. The Council considered Mrs X’s complaint at all three stages of the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. At stage 2 it upheld a large part of the complaint, and accepted that – although it did not carry out a full section 47 enquiry – it did hold a strategy discussion to consider an allegation against Mrs X, and should not have done so because the threshold for a strategy discussion had not been met. It also accepted that it had taken too long to deal with Mrs X’s complaint.
6. The Council agreed to put a note on Mrs X’s children’s social care files, saying the strategy discussion should never have taken place, and to write to agencies which participated in the discussion to say there were no concerns about Mrs X’s children and no further action had been taken. It also offered Mrs X £400 to recognise its failures, including the time it had taken to fully respond to her complaint.
7. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the Council’s proposed financial remedy, and appealed to stage 3. She said the remedy did not fully acknowledge the distress she had experienced. She said that, as she is self-employed, the offer did not take into account the time she had spent dealing with the section 47 enquiry, and her consequent loss of earnings.
8. Mrs X also said the Council’s letter to other agencies was not satisfactory, as it only said no further action was taken, and did not make clear that no strategy discussion should have been held at all.
9. The stage 3 panel considered Mrs X’s appeal, but decided the Council’s letters to other agencies, and its proposed financial remedy, were reasonable. It noted that Mrs X had not provided any evidence to link the section 47 enquiry to a specific loss of earnings.
10. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. In addition to the complaints summarised in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this statement, she said the Council had racially discriminated against her.

My findings

11. The Ombudsman is a body which looks at maladministration and service failure (or ‘fault’). If we find fault with a council, we can recommend a range of remedies.
12. One such remedy can be financial, particularly if we feel a complainant has suffered distress because of a council’s failings. However, the Ombudsman says in our remedy guidance that “our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might”.
13. This guidance says a remedy payment for distress is often between £100 and £300 (although in cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, more may be justified). This is not to say that such a payment represents adequate compensation in a large number of cases. It is just that the Ombudsman is not an organisation which can decide the monetary value which should be placed on the ‘distress’ someone has suffered, and we cannot settle a ‘loss of earnings’ claim. Only a court can do these things.
14. The Council’s financial offer to Mrs X is higher than the Ombudsman’s usual range of distress remedy payments. Although she feels this is inadequate, my view – for the reasons given above – is that I am not in a position to recommend substantial compensation for the Council’s failings.
15. Because of this, I cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.
16. Although Mrs X is also unhappy with the Council’s letter to other agencies, her remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement. The Council told the agencies that it had no concerns about Mrs X’s children, and said it was taking no further action. This, in my view, adequately sets out the Council’s position, and I do not believe asking it to write a further letter would be proportionate. Those agencies are now aware that the Council has no concerns about Mrs X’s children.
17. Mrs X also says the Council has racially discriminated against her. However, she has provided no evidence to suggest that her race had an impact on the Council’s decision-making. In the absence of such evidence, I cannot make a finding on this allegation.
18. For these reasons, I will discontinue my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have discontinued my investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services department.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman