Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with her children’s matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not use the Statutory Complaints Procedure to deal with her complaint.
2. Her complaint to the Council is about how it has handled her children’s matter, including a change of social worker, and unplanned visits by two social workers for her autistic child.
3. Ms X says the Council has caused her and her family distress and emotional harm. She would like the Council to follow the Statutory Complaints Procedure to address her complaints, and to apologise for the distress she says has been caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Children Act 1989 established the requirement for councils to have a formal representations procedure to deal with complaints about local authority functions under Part 3 of the Act and some sections of Parts 4 and 5. We call this ‘the children’s statutory complaints procedure’.
8. Complaints about council’s actions under Section 47 of the Children Act do not normally fall under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
9. Ms X’s complaint relates to matters which fall under Section 47 of the Children Act, so we would not expect the Council to have followed the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
10. Among other examples of the Council failing to consider the needs of her family, Ms X complained the Council changed the social workers working with her autistic child.
11. The Council is entitled to replace social workers as needed, and in this instance, the Council explained how it had carried out a handover to minimise the impact on Ms X’s son.
12. The Council has explained it has made the decision to send two social workers as a safeguarding measure. It has explained it has reason to do this due to past interactions.
13. It has also explained that as the children have child protection plans, the Council will continue to make unannounced visits. It has said it will consider the family’s daily routines in planning those visits.
14. Ms X also complained about how the Council has treated her and her husband in its management of child protection matters, but the examples she has given are unlikely to amount to fault. For instance, Ms X complained she was invited to a meeting at the Council’s office. While she may have found this inconvenient, the offer of the meeting would not amount to fault.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman