Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his child’s care and support needs. He says the Council failed to support him after he raised concerns about his child’s care package and put his child at risk by changing the care and support arrangements without first holding a best interest meeting. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the handling of his child’s care and support needs by a social worker. He says the social worker failed to recognise his parental rights and failed to support him after he raised concerns about his child’s care package. He also complains the social worker put his son at risk by changing his care and support arrangements without first holding a best interest meeting.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes.

(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. Mr X’s complaint was investigated under the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The stage two investigation upheld one of Mr X’s complaint, and partially upheld another. All other complaint points were not upheld.
6. During its adjudication, the Council accepted the findings of most of the stage two investigator. However, the Council disagreed with five of the findings and instead upheld those complaints.
7. Mr X was not happy with the findings of the stage two investigation and escalated the complaint to stage three. The stage three review panel considered the complaint points that were not upheld by the stage two independent investigator and Council.
8. The stage three review panel agreed with most of the findings of the stage two investigator. It did partially uphold one complaint that was not upheld at stage two.
9. Once a complaint has been through the full statutory procedure, unless there is evidence of any flaws in the process, or where it is clear the procedure has not been robust enough, the findings should be relied upon. The Ombudsman will not reinvestigate a complaint unless there is evidence the statutory procedure was not completed appropriately.
10. In this case, there is no evidence the statutory procedure was not completed appropriately. It is also worth highlighting Mr X has not made any complaints about how the statutory process was completed or made any comments on the adequacy of the stage two investigation or stage three review. Therefore, the findings must stand.
11. I have considered whether an investigation would lead to any different outcomes. I note the Council has accepted the recommendations made by the stage two investigator, and stage three review panel. The Council also made a further offer of a symbolic payment of £300 to recognise the distress caused by the faults identified. The recommendations made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. I am satisfied no further recommendations are appropriate in the circumstances.
12. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman