Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about childcare because we could not achieve the outcome he wants, and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable for us.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains the Council has failed to fulfil its duty to ensure that the provision of childcare is sufficient to meet the requirements of working parents, and in particular working parents with disabled children. He wants the Council to pay the costs he has incurred (over and above the normal costs of wrap-around childcare) of employing a nanny to care for his disabled daughter.

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 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr F has a disabled school-age daughter. He requires childcare because both parents work. He was unable to find ‘wrap-around’ childcare that could meet his daughter’s needs and so he employed a nanny. He complained to the Council. The Council responded to his complaint and is working with Mr F to secure suitable childcare. However, the Council declined to refund costs Mr F incurred employing a nanny. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mr F complained to us.
6. Mr F complains the Council failed to fulfil its duty under section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006. This requires councils to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the provision of childcare (whether or not by them) is sufficient to meet the requirements of parents in their area who require childcare in order to enable them work. In doing so, the Council must have regard to the need of parents for childcare that is suitable for disabled children.
7. Mr F proposes the Council should refund the cost of the nanny, less a nominal sum that he could ordinarily expect to pay for wrap-around care. He wants the Council to pay for the nanny from August 2024 and into the future.
8. We could not achieve the outcome Mr F seeks. The duty in section 6 of the Childcare Act 2006 is a target duty, and not a duty to provide childcare for any specific child. We could not link the injustice Mr F claims (the cost of the nanny) to any fault by the Council. We could not, therefore, recommend the remedy he seeks.
9. The Council clearly recognises the challenges faced by parents of disabled children seeking childcare and is working with Mr F to find a solution should he no longer wish to employ the nanny. There is, therefore, no worthwhile outcome for us from further investigation of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint because we could not achieve the outcome he wants, and there is no worthwhile outcome for us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman