Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to act to safeguard the complainant’s child. The Council substantially upheld the complaint and the Ombudsman’s intervention would not lead to a significantly different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council failed to act to safeguard her child.

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
• 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. Miss X’s daughter is a Child in Need. Miss X complains that the Council failed to act to safeguard her daughter following a disclosure that she had been injured by a third party. Specifically, she says her daughter’s voice was not heard in the decision not to carry out a child protection enquiry.
6. Miss X further complains that the Council failed to communicate with her reasonably and that administrative errors on its part caused it to cease her direct payments. She contends that the fault on the Council’s part caused significant detriment to her and her daughter.
7. Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council, which has completed the statutory three-stage procedure for children’s services complaints. It was substantially upheld, finding that the Council’s response to the initial referral was flawed and subsequent communication was inadequate. In addition, the Council has accepted that the interruption of direct payments amounted to a failure of service. It has apologised, repaid the amount owing and offered Miss X a symbolic payment of £250.
8. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss X argues that the procedural and financial remedies are not proportionate to the impact of the Council’s failures on her and her daughter. She wants the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the complaint, consider the remedies offered, ensure the correction of inaccuracies in the Stage 3 report and review the Council’s procedures.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Where a complaint has completed the statutory procedure and has been substantially upheld we will not normally investigate. Our intervention would effectively amount to a reinvestigation of matters which have already been investigated, and is not therefore warranted. Miss X does not believe the outcome of her complaint is proportionate to the impact on her and her daughter. It is not however so demonstrably unreasonable as to warrant our intervention.
10. We will not ask a council to change the content of reports or other documents. This is because they reflect the understanding of officers at the time they were produced. Miss X may ask the Council to add a statement of her dissenting views to its files, and we would expect it to agree to do so. If Miss X is not satisfied, the appropriate route for her would be to bring her concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because our intervention would not lead to a substantially different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman