Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s action to remove children from his care was illegal. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to have raised concerns or appealed this issue in court. We could not add to the investigation and the remedial action the Council has already taken under all three stages of the statutory complaint process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s action to remove children from his care was illegal. He says this caused him and the children significant emotional distress.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is Special Guardian for his step grandchildren. In 2022, the Council applied for an Interim Care Order to remove the children from his care after it received a safeguarding referral. The children were returned to Mr X’s care just over a year later.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The Council concluded its consideration of Mr X’s complaints under stage three of the statutory complaint process in February 2025.
9. Stages two and three of the complaints process found the Council’s handling of Mr X’s case could have been better. There had been delays in progressing specialist assessments, poor communication and issues with the proper reimbursement of Mr X’s expenses. The stage two Independent Investigating Officer (IIO) also highlighted concerns about the approach the Council took to progress the matter to court. The IIO believed the safeguarding risks in this case might have been better managed through intervention under Child Protection plans.
10. The Council has already apologised, made reimbursements and completed a lessons learnt exercise as a result of Mr X’s upheld complaints. It is unlikely we could achieve anything more by investigating the matter further.
11. The key issue Mr X has brought to us is about the legality of the Council’s action to remove the children from his care. This decision was made by the court following the Council’s application. The law prevents us from investigating anything that has been the subject of court proceedings. Mr X would have had the right to legally challenge the court’s decision to issue the Interim Care Order removing his step grandchildren from his care. It would be reasonable to expect Mr X to have exercised that right of challenge at the time if he disagreed with the court’s judgement. We cannot now act in place of the court to decide whether the decision it made was correct or appropriate.
12. We 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 already carried out or achieve the outcome Mr X wants. There is nothing to suggest that it would do so.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to have appealed the court’s decision. Further investigation by us could also not add to the Council’s complaint responses.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman