Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement in his children’s case. We will not investigate this complaint for several reasons. We already considered parts of it in 2017, and it is now too late for us to investigate other issues from the period before the Council began court proceedings. We cannot consider the proceedings and issues linked to them. More recent events form a small part of the complaint, and it is unlikely investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement in his children’s case. He says it made conflicting and illogical decisions and failed to provide a service to the children. He also complained about information the Council included in reports it wrote for care proceedings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained to us.
7. I considered information the Council provided, which included complaints correspondence.
8. I considered Mr X’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. The Council became involved with Mr X’s family in 2015, when one of his children made an allegation against another. Mr X complained to us about how the Council worked with the family, lacking appreciation of the dynamics of the situation and providing no services. He said officers were hostile and unsupportive, and there were issues with record-keeping and communication. The Council had upheld much of the complaint and offered several remedies, including a payment of £1,000 to recognise the family’s distress.
10. We issued a decision statement in early 2017 explaining we would not investigate the complaint further as the Council had provided a satisfactory remedy and investigation would not be likely to lead to a different outcome. The Council had started care proceedings in the meantime.
11. Some complaints Mr X now makes overlap with the complaint we already considered. We will not reconsider those complaints. Mr X also raised some issues in this current complaint which were not included in his earlier complaint to us, but which related to the period before court proceedings began.
12. We generally expect people to complain to us within 12 months of events. Mr X began the Council’s complaints process for this current complaint in early 2018 and there was some delay in the Council considering the complaint, so I have not applied this rule rigidly. However, issues from 2016 and earlier are too long ago and we should not investigate those events now as Mr X could reasonably have complained about those issues much sooner.
13. Part of Mr X’s complaint relates to the information the Council presented to the court. We cannot consider what happened in court, which includes the content of reports sent to court. It was reasonable for Mr X to raise any such issues during proceedings.
14. Despite the time elapsed since the events Mr X complained about, the Council addressed his newer complaint in full and has offered further remedies, including a further payment of £1,000 to the family. For the parts of Mr X’s complaint to us that related to more recent events that are separable from the court proceedings and within our jurisdiction, I do not consider our involvement would add value to the investigation that has already taken place or lead to a meaningful remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we have considered parts of it previously, some issues have been subject to court proceedings, and it is unlikely our involvement would achieve a different outcome for the remaining parts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman