Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her daughter’s allegations against a family member. We should not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or recommend a further remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her daughter’s allegations against a family member. The family member lives in another area and Miss X says the Council did not refer the concerns to the other local authority and it did not contact the alleged perpetrator before closing its investigation.

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:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Miss X provided when she complained to us.
4. I considered information from the Council which included complaints correspondence.
5. I gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft version of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss X raised concerns with the Council in late 2018 about an allegation by her daughter relating to a family member. The family member lives in a different local authority area and the Council contacted that local authority to make it aware of the concerns.
7. Miss X later raised a formal complaint because she did not believe sufficient action had come as a result of the concern. The Council investigated her complaint and explained it had passed the information on, but it would have expected its worker to contact the other local authority again to follow up. It apologised for this. It explained it did not believe Miss X’s daughter had ‘slipped through the net’ as Miss X complained, as it had assessed her and ensured she was safe. It had then closed the case when it was assured of Miss X’s daughter’s safety and that she was no longer having contact with the alleged perpetrator.
8. The police and the other local authority are aware of the allegation. I do not believe our involvement would lead to a significantly different outcome. The Council identified areas of fault in the substantive parts of Miss X’s complaint, and I do not believe we would find maladministration causing a significant injustice in the rest of the complaint that would warrant investigation. The Council has apologised for the errors. I do not believe investigation would lead to us finding the errors led to an increased risk to Miss X’s daughter and I do not believe we would recommend a further remedy if we were to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would be able to add to the Council’s investigation or that investigation would lead to a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman