Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a serious incident that caused significant harm to her child while attending an activity. Doing so would not be likely to lead to a substantially different outcome from that already achieved.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council failed to deal properly with her complaint about a very serious incident that caused harm to her child who was attending an activity.

She wanted the Council to fully investigate and be transparent with its findings as to why her child was not safeguarded. She wanted a full response in detail and the Council to confirm whether it or an agency was responsible. She wanted reassurance that measures had been taken to prevent such incidents in future.

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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is no dispute that what happened to Mrs X’s child was very serious. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint stated it happened when another child was left unsupervised with Mrs X’s child. Given the nature of the incident, it is something that was unlikely to have happened had a supervising adult been present. Investigation by us would be unlikely to establish any other direct cause than that stated by the Council.
6. While the agency that provided the service would have been responsible for the supervision, it is also the case that the child was attending an activity to meet assessed care needs for Mrs X’s family, by an agency the Council commissioned. The Council would therefore have had an overall responsibility to ensure the care was safe. I note it issued a clear apology to Mrs X that the incident had happened.
7. The agency providing the care is well-known and respected in this field, though I have not named it. The Council would have had a reasonable expectation that this agency would adhere to the required supervision arrangements, particularly if a child posed any specific risk. I would not therefore have expected the Council to be able to predict that the other child would be left unsupervised with Mrs X’s child. I note that the Council’s response indicates it now has concerns about the agency as a result of its investigation.
8. The Council’s own actions after the incident were in line with what we would expect to see. The senior officer who wrote to Mrs X referred to two safeguarding strategy meetings taking place after the incident, one of them within 24 hours. He also stated he had made his concerns about the incident and what he described as the agency’s response to it known to the senior colleague responsible for commissioning care. That means he had alerted the person with ultimate responsibility for ensuring that agencies commissioned for future work were reliable. He stated he had also spoken to a senior police officer about the police investigation and would be contacting Ofsted. Finally, although he could not give details about the other child, he stated that appropriate action had been taken to “support” the other child. This accords with the seriousness of the comments in the rest of the reply. I also note the clarity of the officer’s apology to Mrs X on the Council’s behalf.
9. I realise the effect on Mrs X’s child of what happened has been very serious, and that as her child’s parent, she wishes to leave nothing undone that should be done. However, the actions described by the senior officer are typical of those we would expect to see in a serious case of this kind. Were we to investigate, it is unlikely that we would add to the Council’s own investigation or recommend a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation, or lead to a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman