Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in 2019 and its subsequent handling of Mrs X’s complaint. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or the outcome Mrs X wants. She has or had a right to go to court it would have been reasonable to use to pursue a compensation claim. There is not enough evidence of fault in the key matter or the way the Council handled the complaint to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council responded in a poor way after her daughter made an allegation that was untrue in 2019.
2. She said the Council told her after the second stage of the complaint process that she could not continue with the complaint process while making a compensation claim.
3. She said what happened had a significant effect on her health and she had to reduce her hours at work.
4. She said she wanted lessons to be learned, and to receive compensation for what happened. She said the Council’s legal team had not responded to her after she provided an explanation of how she had been affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The second stage report into the complaint about what happened in 2019 shows one of Mrs X’s children disclosed a safeguarding matter to the Council. This led to the Council deciding there were grounds to make both Mrs X’s children subject to child protection plans. Given the nature of what the child disclosed, it was not fault for the Council to reach the decision it did.
10. Other matters involved in the complaint, some of which were upheld, were of much lesser importance, and would not have caused sufficient injustice to Mrs X to warrant investigation. We would be unlikely to recommend a significantly greater remedy than that offered by the Council after the second stage report, which was an apology and £200 for her time and trouble in bringing the complaint. For the avoidance of doubt, we would not be able to establish a causal link between the minor matters of fault and the significant injustice claimed by Mrs X.
11. The Council accepted it had taken too long to complete the second stage investigation, which took place during the second half of 2020. However, it offered Mrs X the right to escalate her complaint to the third stage of the statutory complaint process in early 2021. The correspondence shows it also advised Mrs X that it could not undertake both a compensation claim and a third stage complaint at the same time, and it advised her to seek legal advice about the latter. The Council again offered Mrs X the right to proceed via the third stage of the complaint procedure after she approached us in February 2022. She has not done so. I also note she was responsible for a significant part of the time taken after the Council issued the second stage report. The Council’s actions in dealing with Mrs X complaint do not, other than the delay in completing the second stage, for which it apologised, amount to fault.
12. Compensation for personal damages or loss of income are matters where Mrs X has or had a right to go to court it would have been reasonable to use, particularly if she was dissatisfied with the Council’s legal department’s refusal to accept a compensation claim.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:

• There is insufficient evidence of fault in the action of the Council following Mrs X’s child’s disclosure in 2019 to warrant investigation;
• Any subsidiary faults in 2019 are unlikely to have caused sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement;
• There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the complaint to warrant investigation;
• Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome, or the outcome Mrs X wants; and
• Mrs X had or has a right to go to court about issues of compensation for claimed effects on her health and loss of earnings it would be or have been reasonable to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman