Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils handling of Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to address his concerns, including conflicts of interest. He says he received intimidation related to his dyslexia and reputational damage effecting his career.
2. Mr X wants to ensure appropriate support is in place for his child moving forward.

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. (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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains that the Council closed his complaint on the day it was submitted, without investigation. This is because the delivery of children’s services is administered by West Northamptonshire Council, not the Council he first complained to. West Northamptonshire Council has since considered Mr X’s complaint under its procedure.
7. Mr X complains about several services in his complaint to us. Matters relating to the school’s Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) and health services are not for us to consider. We can only consider matters relating to the Council.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about a conflict of interest between the newly allocated practitioner, Mr X’s neighbour and the people who previously lived at his property. The Council confirmed the allocated practitioner had also raised this issue internally. The Council assured Mr X that no confidential information had been shared by its practitioner and took steps to allocate a new practitioner to the family.
9. Due to staffing resource, there was a delay in reallocation which the Council apologised for. The Council responded to the conflict of interest appropriately.
10. Mr X raised further concern about a conflict of interest with another practitioner who had worked with the family previously. The Council decided there was no conflict nor breach of confidentiality. There is no evidence to suggest it was at fault to come to this conclusion.
11. Mr X says he has suffered reputational damage effecting his career as a result of the Council’s actions. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to suggest its action has caused the injustice Mr X alleges. It acted on information it received to begin its involvement with the family in line with its statutory duties.
12. Mr X says the Council did not consider making reasonable adjustments despite him disclosing a diagnosis of dyslexia. In response to our enquiries, the Council told us Mr X declined its offer of an advocate or any additional support throughout the complaints process.
13. Mr X told the Council he preferred to be contacted in writing to support information processing and retention. The Council noted this preference on the complaint record. It also made adjustments to ensure he could participate fully in meetings. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating this issue further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman