Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the services provided to the complainant’s family and the handling of his subsequent complaint. This is because it is unlikely investigation would lead to a substantially different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council has failed to provide necessary services and support to his family to enable them to support their disabled child. He further complains that its initial complaint response was flawed.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council provides support to Mr X’s child as a Child in Need. Mr X complained to the Council that it had failed to provide information and agreed payments to him, that its assessments of his family had been flawed and that frequent changes of social workers have caused problems.
6. The Council addressed Mr X’s complaint under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. Mr X regarded the complaint at Stage 1 as unacceptable, and this contention was considered at the later stages of the procedure.
7. Mr X’s complaint was substantially upheld. The remaining points of contention relate, in the main, to the remedy the Council has offered in recognition of the fault identified during the complaint procedure.
8. The Ombudsman does not normally investigate complaints which have been upheld. In this case, the evidence shows that the points Mr X has made have been substantially accepted. The remedy the Council has offered is properly explained and defensible and it is unlikely investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a significantly different outcome.
9. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to meet the cost he incurred in buying a new vehicle. The Council has properly set out why it does not believe this is appropriate. There are no grounds for us to intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely investigation would lead to a substantially different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman