Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in its response to safeguarding concerns raised by the complainant and in its consideration of her subsequent complaint. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Miss X, complains that the Council was at fault in its response to safeguarding concerns she raised about her children and in its consideration of her subsequent complaint.

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:

• investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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. Miss X’s children live with another family member. Miss X raised a number of concerns about their welfare with the Council, alleging that they were suffering neglect. She is critical of the Council’s response, which she regards as failing to properly consider her concerns. She also says the Council was at fault in disclosing information to the family member.
6. Miss X complained to the Council. The Council addressed the complaint under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. The complaint completed the three-stage procedure and was upheld in part. Miss X says she has come to the Ombudsman in order to seek financial redress.
7. The statutory procedure provides a robust and effective mechanism through which complainants can have their concerns about children’s services considered. Where a complaint has completed the statutory procedure, the question for the Ombudsman is whether the evidence shows the procedure has been properly implemented, and the outcome is reasonable and proportionate. If it does, it is unlikely we would wish to intervene. That is the case here.
8. Miss X had the opportunity to have input into Stages 2 and 3. Her recourse in respect of her disagreement with the outcome of Stage 2 was to escalate to the final stage of the procedure. She did so, and the evidence shows that the Review Panel considered her representations. The Review Panel’s findings were proportionate and defensible. The recommendations appear reasonable in the circumstances, and I note that the Council accepted them.
9. The record of the Review Panel meeting shows that it was aware of its ability to recommend financial redress. The fact that it did not is a matter for its judgement. In the absence of fault in the way the Review Panel made its findings, it is not for the Ombudsman to criticise the merits of the findings or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Our intervention would not lead to a different outcome and is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman