Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with the family. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Agreed with his points of complaint yet it did not uphold them;
• Failed to provide reasons for not upholding his complaints;
• Carried out an assessment that contained inaccuracies; and
• Failed to provide any advice or support throughout the assessment.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused avoidable distress to the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X and his wife are adopters and the Council decided to conduct a single assessment of the family. Mr X was unhappy with the way the Council handled the assessment. The Council investigated Mr X’s concerns under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
9. I have considered evidence from Mr X’s complaint escalation, the Stage 3 Panel report and the Stage 3 adjudication letter to Mr X.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it is wrong. We consider the process the Council used to make a decision. If it followed the processes, we cannot criticise the decision.
11. On the evidence I have seen on how the Council investigated and responded to Mr X’s concerns, it is unlikely we would find fault in how it responded to his complaints.
12. The Council partially upheld one of Mr X’s complaints because it did not send him a draft of the assessment report before it was finalised. This has not caused Mr X a significant injustice. He was able to participate in the assessment process because there were several visits by the Council to his home during the assessment. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.
13. In response to Mr X’s complaints, the Council has taken action to improve its services.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman