Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about the care provided for his son because there is nothing we could add to the independent investigation that has already been carried out, and our involvement would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains the Council does not provide enough care to meet his disabled son’s complex needs.

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, 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 Mr F and the Council, including the papers from all three stages of the statutory children’s complaints process.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr F’s disabled son has complex care needs. Mr F complains the Council does not provide enough support, and caring for their son is taking a toll on his son’s mother.
6. The Council responded to Mr F’s complaint at all three stages of the statutory children’s complaints process. This is a formal procedure, set out in law, which councils must follow to investigate certain types of complaint. It involves:
• a written response from the Council (Stage 1);
• the appointment of an independent investigator to prepare a report (Stage 2); and, if the person making the complaint requests
• an independent panel to consider their representations (Stage 3).
7. The independent investigator produced a detailed report. An independent panel considered his findings. They found some areas where the Council could have done better, but did not uphold Mr F’s complaint about the level of support provided to meet his son’s needs.
8. It is for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide how much support Mr F’s son needs. We are not an appeal. We cannot question Council decisions taken without fault. An independent investigation found no serious faults in the Council’s assessment of Mr F’s son’s needs, or the care it provides.
9. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome, and there is nothing we could not add to the independent investigation that has already been carried out. There is, therefore, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint because there is nothing we could add to the independent investigation that has already been carried out, and our involvement would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman