Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his family. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify us investigating. We also could not add to the Council’s apology to Mr X for its poor communication by investigating further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his wife Mrs Y. Mr X complains about the Council’s action following Mrs Y’s admission to hospital. Mr X believes the Council’s actions were unwarranted and caused additional distress which prolonged Mrs Y’s stay in hospital. He wants everything he believes the Council lied about corrected and for the staff involved to be removed from their posts. He also wants compensation for the distress caused.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. When we find fault, we can recommend remedies for significant personal injustice, or to prevent future injustice, caused by that fault. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended)

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’s contact with his children must be supervised by Mrs Y. In May 2025, the Council received a safeguarding referral about one of Mrs Y and Mr X’s children. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect. The Council did not identify any safeguarding concerns following its enquiries.
6. Shortly after this Mrs Y was admitted to hospital. The Council undertook further enquiries and assessments of the children to ensure appropriate measures were in place to care for them while Mrs Y was in hospital. The Council was satisfied with the arrangements in place while Mrs Y was in hospital and ended its involvement when she was discharged.
7. The Council has apologised to Mr X that its communication with him and his family was not clearer at the time. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint that its safeguarding enquiries and assessments were unnecessary.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement. The Council’s apology to Mr X is a proportionate and reasonable response to his complaint about its communication at the time. We have no powers to compel the Council to dismiss the staff involved as Mr X would like.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making and we could achieve nothing more by investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman