Summary: The Council was not at fault for its offer of £1,000 to recognise the failures it has already accepted in response to Miss B’s complaint. The Ombudsman does not recommend ‘compensation’ for distress in the way a court does, and the offer adequately recognises that the Council failed her and a daughter in several ways.

The complaint

1. The complainant – whom I refer to as Miss B – made several complaints to the Council about how it followed its child protection and looked-after child (LAC) processes when taking her daughter into care.
2. The Council has already largely accepted that it was responsible for failures in the areas Miss B complained about, and it has agreed to the recommendations of the independent investigator who considered her complaint. However, she complains that the Council failed to offer her a financial payment which was large enough to compensate for its failures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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 the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Miss B and the Council. I wrote to Miss B and the Council with my draft decision and gave them the opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Children Act 1989 representations procedure requires that councils follow a three-stage process when responding to complaints. The exception to this is if – after stage 2 – all or most of a complaint has been upheld, and the complainant agrees to an early referral to the Ombudsman rather than the stage 3 panel.
8. In Miss B’s case the Council has asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint after stage 2 instead of stage 3. It says asking a stage 3 panel to consider the complaint would not lead to a different outcome.
9. This does not meet the criteria for early referral to the Ombudsman, because
   Miss B did not agree to it.
10. However, as there is only one of Miss B’s desired outcomes which remains unmet following the stage 2 investigation (the compensation issue), and as Miss B did approach the Ombudsman herself separately, I do not consider the Council’s early referral to have caused her an injustice, so I will not comment on it further.
11. As most of Miss B’s desired outcomes have already been met, the matter at hand is her complaint that the Council should offer her a higher financial remedy for the failures it has accepted.
12. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to recommend that a council pay ‘compensation’ in the way that Miss B has suggested. Only a court is in the position to decide the monetary value which should be placed on the ‘distress’ someone has suffered.
13. The Ombudsman can, however, suggest financial remedies which ‘recognise’ distress, including time and trouble (rather than compensating for it), and these payments are generally token amounts.
14. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies 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). A remedy payment for time and trouble is unlikely to be more than £300, and depends on the degree of extra difficulty experienced by the complainant.
15. In Miss B’s case I am unable to say exactly what distress her and her daughter suffered while her daughter was in care, or how much of it was the Council’s fault. As I have said above, only a court could decide that.
16. However, I note that the Council has accepted numerous faults in how it dealt with Miss B’s daughter’s case, and it is likely these had some impact on her.
17. Because of this – and having considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies – I consider the Council’s offer of £1,000 (which recognises the time and trouble she has taken over the complaint, and also provides some money for her to explore her or her daughter’s therapy needs) to be satisfactory. As a result, I have not found fault with the Council.
18. If Miss B wishes to pursue her claim for compensation for the issues she complains about, she can seek legal advice.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Council was not at fault for its offer of £1,000 to recognise the failures it has already accepted in response to Miss B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman