Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral in relation to his daughter Miss Y. The Council has already investigated and responded to Mr X’s concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has apologised and offered remedial action and payment for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We could not add to the Council’s response or achieve the outcomes Mr X and Miss Y want.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns when allegations were made about his daughter, Miss Y, at work leading to a police investigation. Mr X believes the Council failed to ensure the police could modify restrictive bail conditions for Miss X to have unsupervised contact with her child sooner. Mr X says he lost earnings while he provided constant supervision for longer than necessary. He wants the Council to compensate him for his losses and for the distress caused to him, Miss X and his grandchild by the Council’s poor handling. He also wants the Council to learn from his family’s experience.

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, 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. 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. 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 Y and Mr X’s complaints under stage three of the statutory complaint process in late February 2025. This included the complaint elements summarised in paragraph 1 above and other issues.
7. The stage two complaint investigation and stage three panel review concluded the Council’s communication and case recording in this case could have been better. The Council accepted that it should have notified the police about the outcome of its child protection enquiries into Miss Y’s child sooner. The Council apologised for the faults identified at stages two and three, offered a small payment in recognition of its poor communication and complaint handling delay. It also explained the action it would or had taken to complete the stage three review panel’s recommendations and provide details of how Mr X could make a claim for compensation.
8. During the stage three review panel hearing Mr X expressed a wish to be compensated for his lost earnings while he supervised Miss Y’s contact with her child. He also asked for a payment to cover the cost a holiday abroad for Miss Y and her child, which he believed they were unable to take because of the Council’s mishandling. The review panel said it did not have enough information to say with certainty that earlier notification to the police by the Council would have led to a lifting or change in bail conditions. Because of this, the review panel could not conclude the Council’s delay in notifying the police directly caused the financial losses Mr X and Miss Y believe they had incurred.
9. Further investigation of Mr X and Miss Y’s complaints by us is unlikely to add to the Council’s responses. The Council’s responses to Mr X and Miss Y’s complaints under all three stages of the statutory process were detailed and thorough. The remedial action the Council has offered to Miss Y is in line with the recommendations we would typically expect in such cases.
10. 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. There is unlikely to be further evidence available that would lead us to a different outcome or conclusions. In this case, the question for us is whether our intervention would add anything to the Council’s investigation and there is nothing to suggest that it would do so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s responses.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman