Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council included inaccurate information in a Child and Family assessment. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mx Z complained the Council included inaccurate information in its Child and Family assessment. They said the Council failed to correct this inaccurate information despite stating it would. They also stated the Council included opinions on medical issues which it was not trained in.
2. Mx Z said they had been left emotionally harmed by the Council’s actions. They want the Council to acknowledge the harm it has caused and to complete a proper stage three review into their complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. Where a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it, unless there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question.
7. The Council considered Mx Z’s complaint from stage two of the statutory children’s complaint process. At stage two, the Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) to oversee the investigation. The IO identified fault in the Council’s initial complaint handling; in that it did not provide a stage one response. They also found the Council had used inaccurate information in its assessment and not responded to Child Protection concerns as swiftly as it should have. Where the IO did not uphold Mx Z’s complaints they set out their reasons for this. The Council wrote to Mx Z with the outcome of their complaint. It apologised for any identified failings and set out steps taken to address these.
8. Mx Z requested the Council escalate the complaint to stage three. They felt the Council’s Child and Family assessment continued to contain incorrect, biased views.
9. At stage three an independent panel (the Panel) reviewed the stage two investigation. The Panel changed one finding from partially upheld to upheld. It did not change any other findings..
10. Although Mx Z remains unhappy with the outcome of the complaint, we will not investigate. I have reviewed the stage two report, stage three panel findings and the adjudicating letters from the Council. Despite delays in the complaint handling, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the complaint was considered to justify our involvement. The IO has set out their reasoning where they have not upheld a complaint, or where they could not make a finding. The Panel has independently reviewed this process. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mx Z’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman