Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a referral because we could not add to the investigation carried out. We cannot investigate the school’s involvement in the referral because we have no power to investigate what happened in schools.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a multi-agency referral that was made to the Council. He complains that about the decision to make the referral by his child’s school and its failure to inform him. He also complains about the Council’s decision to make enquiries with other agencies upon receipt of the referral.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s child’s school made a multi-agency referral to the Council. Upon receipt the Council made enquiries with other agencies and made the decision that the only action to be taken was to offer the family the services of Early Help.
7. I cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the decision to make the referral or that he was not informed of that decision. These were actions taken by his child’s school and the law prevents us from investigating what happens in schools. I can though consider how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint about how it dealt with the referral.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. At stage two, the Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP), who discussed the complaint with Mr X, reviewed case records and interviewed relevant staff. They found that they could not consider Mr X’s complaint about the school, but did consider how the Council dealt with the referral. They found that the Council dealt with the matter appropriately, making multi-agency checks in line with its procedures.
9. Mr X asked the Council to escalate the complaint to stage three. Mr X attended the stage three panel meeting and questions were asked of he and the IO. The panel agreed with the conclusions reached by the IO.
10. Although Mr X is unhappy with the outcomes of the Council’s investigation, we will not investigate his complaint. Where a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate, unless there were any flaws that could call the findings into question. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of the complaint, therefore, further investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the one carried out by the Council.
11. Mr X’s view is that upon receipt of the referral, the Council should not have carried out multi-agency checks. However, the Council’s policy is clear that checks should be carried out in order to reach a decision on the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because doing so would not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and because the law prevents us from investigating what happens in schools.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman