Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services department. The Ombudsman is not able to award compensation for distress in the way a court might, so we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs B wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, complains about the actions of the Council’s children’s services department.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

4. Mrs B complained to the Council in 2018. She said the Council shared confidential information about her with her estranged husband and her children. She said this put her and her children at risk. She said the Council ignored her views on her children’s ‘child in need’ plan and failed to properly assess the risk their father posed to them. She also made complaints about the conduct of the Council’s social workers.
5. The Council considered Mrs B’s complaint at all three stages of the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. It upheld a large part the complaint, and acknowledged the traumatic time Mrs B had been through. It told her it would comply with any investigation carried out by the social work regulator into Mrs B’s complaints about the professional conduct of its social workers. It apologised for its failings and offered her £1,000 to recognise her injustice.
6. Mrs B was dissatisfied with the Council’s proposed financial remedy. She said it did not fully acknowledge the distress she had experienced. She said a court would order the Council to pay a much higher amount. She asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.

My findings

7. 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.
8. 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”. Instead, we recommend token payments which ‘recognise’ an injustice.
9. Our 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 always represents adequate compensation. 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. Only a court can do this.
10. The Council’s financial offer to Mrs B 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.
11. Because of this, I cannot achieve the outcome Mrs B wants, and I will discontinue my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I have discontinued my investigation into Mrs B’s complaint. I cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman