Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Children’s Services complaint through its statutory procedures. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, it is not our role to reinvestigate the underlying matters as the complainant might want, and we could not connect the claimed injustice from any criminal acts with the Council’s complaints procedures. So the matter does not warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council has:
1. failed properly to investigate his Children’s Services complaint in line with the law, policy and procedure;
2. colluded with the Ombudsman to breach the law, policy and procedures; and
3. failed to meet the Public Sector Equality Duty and other duties in the Equality Act 2010, by not adjusting its procedures to meet his needs as a disabled person.
2. Mr B says the Council’s actions have caused him and his family serious harm and suffering, including from false allegations about them from professionals, and led to his daughter being the victim of criminal acts against her and traumatised. He seeks apologies, compensation and practice changes from the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
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’, 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant, and papers from the Council’s own investigations and responses to the complaint.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Regulations and guidance (‘Getting the best from complaints’) issued under the Children Act 1989 set out three stages of procedure for handling complaints about Children’s Services. They are:
• a first response from the service complained about;
• a stage 2 investigation and reports by an officer – the Investigating Officer (IO) – from outside the service and an Independent Person (IP) from outside the Council; and
• a stage 3 Review panel hearing and report.
9. The Council must respond to both stage 2 and stage 3 reports and any recommendations.
10. This procedure exists to provide children, young people and those interested in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. The role of the Ombudsman is not to reinvestigate a complaint but to consider whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question.

Alleged faults in complaints procedure

11. A key fault Mr B describes in the complaints procedure is the IO did not interview relevant council or other staff. However:
• The law and guidance says the IO may interview staff, but it does not say they must. There is therefore no fault in procedure if an IO does not interview council officers during the stage 2 investigation.
• In this case a first stage 3 panel decided the IO’s findings were not as robust as they could have been because the IO did not interview staff, so it recommended that should happen.
• The IO then interviewed some staff and added to their stage 2 report. A second stage 3 panel decided the final report was sound and reached its own conclusions.
• Both the IO and the review panel decided not to uphold three of
  Mr B’s complaints and did not make a finding on the fourth. There were therefore no recommendations for the Council to consider.
• Any flaw in the original stage 2 report was therefore overcome by later action. I have looked at the papers and see no evidence of other flaws which would justify us investigating.
12. Mr B also says the Council failed to consider section 7.5 of the statutory guidance, which covers complaints coring over into National Health Service (NHS) responsibilities. Mr B's complaints to the Council were about Council responsibilities and actions, but the IO ensured early in the complaints procedure he was pursing his NHS complaints separately, which he was. There was therefore no obvious crossover for the Council to consider under section 7.5, and no evidence of fault for us to investigate.

Alleged collusion with the Ombudsman

13. Mr B says he learned from Council papers it had sought advice from the Ombudsman about whether the IO should interview staff as part of their investigation.
14. The Local Government Act 1974 says the Ombudsman may issue guidance on good administrative practice, including complaints procedures. Councils may seek advice on matters they are dealing with before we receive a complaint, so any request and our reply is general advice not linked to a specific complaint. We give it on the condition we may take a different view on a specific case with more information before us.
15. If any council asked the Ombudsman for advice on whether an IO should interview staff as part of their investigation, we would be likely to say there is no duty on them to do so and it is a matter of the IO’s discretion. There is no fault in the Council seeking, receiving and acting on such advice because it is consistent with the law and guidance, as set out in paragraph 8. Nor does it mean, however, that an IO, an IP or a Stage 3 Complaint Review Panel could not take an individual view of their own about interviewing staff in a particular case.

Equality Act 2010

16. Information in the Council’s complaints bundle shows both it and the IO carefully considered Mr B’s needs and the Council’s duties. They made significant adjustments to procedure, so we would not likely find fault in its actions if we were to investigate.
17. We have no power to decide whether the Council met the terms of the Equality Act 2010, as that needs interpretation of the law by a court. So it would be reasonable for Mr B to take a claim about the Council breaching the Act to court, so we will not investigate it.

Claimed injustice

18. Without evidence of fault in complaints procedures which would justify us investigating I do not need to consider the effects of the Council’s handling of those procedures on Mr B and his family.
19. I have, however, considered what Mr B says about the Council’s actions leading to his daughter becoming a victim of serious crime, and its effects. Mr B first complained to us in November 2024 shortly after the Council had issued its final response to stage 3 of the complaints procedure. I consider it likely on balance what happened to his daughter was significantly before that, so there is no connection here.
20. Even if Mr B believes what happened to his daughter was the result of some failing by the Council in service provision which led to him complaining to it, the IO and review panel did not uphold his complaints so there is no evidence to support what he says. And it is not for us to re-investigate his underlying complaints as I explained in paragraph 9.
21. Besides, the only person or people responsible for a crime are the perpetrators so we could not make the same connection to the Council’s actions as Mr B has.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, it is not our role to reinvestigate the underlying matters as Mr B might want, and we could not connect the claimed injustice from criminal acts with the Council’s complaints procedures. So the matter does not warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman