Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council made false allegations about the complainant. This is because our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation already carried out, or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs X, complains that the Council made false allegations against her concerning a child in her care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X cares for a child who has complex needs. She says a social worker produced an inaccurate assessment report, which was then signed off by the social worker’s manager, making false allegations against her. She complains that, as a result, she was unnecessarily compelled to attend a child protection conference which concluded that child protection action was not warranted.
6. Mrs X made a formal complaint about the Council’s actions, which was considered under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. In February 2022 it was upheld in part at Stage 2 of the procedure. The Council accepted the Stage 2 findings and advised Mrs X of her right to request escalation of her complaint to the final stage of the procedure within 20 days. She did not do so.
7. The evidence shows that Mrs X requested escalation to Stage 3 in 2023. She also requested a financial remedy for the fault identified during the complaint process. The Council declined to escalate, given that Mrs X did not exercise her right at the time. It considered her request for a financial remedy and offered her a payment of £1000. Mrs X regards this as inadequate.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because we would not be able to add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out. If she was unhappy with the Stage 2 outcome, her remedy was to escalate to Stage 3. She did not do so within the prescribed time and we will not therefore criticise the Council for declining to escalate a year later.
9. We will not speculate about the conclusions the Stage 3 Review Panel may have reached, or what remedy it may have recommended, if any. That being the case, we cannot say that the payment the Council has offered is unreasonable. There are no grounds for us to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation already carried out, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman