Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral for her child. We could not add to the Council’s investigation and responses under all three stages of the statutory complaints process. We also cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not inform her child protection enquiries had ended in relation to her child. She believes the Council focussed its subsequent assessment on her mental health and childhood trauma, rather than including all the other family members also caring for her child. Miss X says this caused her significant physical and mental distress. She wants the Council to compensate her for the medical expenses she believes she incurred for distress caused by the Council’s actions.

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
• 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 and the Council.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
5. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question.
6. The Council concluded its consideration of Miss X’s complaints under stage three of the statutory complaint process in March 2025. This included the complaint elements summarised in paragraph 1 above and other issues.
7. The Stage Three Review Panel altered the finding of one complaint from partially upheld to upheld. The Panel concluded the Council’s communication with Miss X and her family could have been better. This included making clear when child protection enquiries had ended and that the subsequent child and family assessment was voluntary. The Panel recommended the Council took steps to improve. The Council issued Miss X with an apology for its poor communication in its stage two complaint response.
8. The Council has responded to Miss X’s complaints in detail and upheld it in part. It has accepted the stage three Panel’s recommendations to improve its service in future. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate a complaint which has already been through all stages of the statutory process. It is not a good use of public money to do so. In this case, the question for us is whether our intervention would add anything to the investigation the Council has carried out. There is nothing to suggest that it would do so.
9. The Council has considered and declined Miss X’s request for financial compensation. The level of compensation Miss X is seeking is unlikely to be an amount within our gift to recommend, given we typically seek small remedy payments in recognition of injustice rather than awards for damages in the same way the courts might.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the Council’s responses, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman