Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s representations about the content of a report. This is because we can achieve nothing significant by doing so.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs C, complains that the Council failed to respond reasonably to her representations about the content of a Household Review report.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. Mrs C and her husband are foster carers. Her complaint relates to a placement which ended with the child’s adoption.
6. Mrs C complains about the content of a Household Review report completed in 2021 when the child had left the placement. The report sets out the officer’s concerns about the placement and contains what Mrs C regards as inaccuracies. She also believes the report fails to take account of the contribution professionals made to the issues raised.
7. Mrs C made a formal complaint. The Council’s responses set out that the opinions expressed in the review are the professional opinion of the author. They do however include an apology and describe the complaint as being partially upheld.
8. Mrs C is not satisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint. She points out that the complaint correspondence does not show which parts of the complaint have been upheld and which have not. She wants the report to be amended to remove inaccuracies and include the contribution professionals made to the issues raised.
9. I recognise why Mrs C regards the Council’s response as inadequate, particularly in relation to the ‘partially upheld’ finding. But there are insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint.
10. It is not our role to ask that reports be altered retrospectively. This is because they reflect the options professionals held at the time they were written. Where there are demonstrable inaccuracies, a complainant can pursue their legal right to rectification and the Ombudsman would regard it as reasonable for them to do so.
11. The most we would normally seek to achieve in circumstances where the content of a report is disputed is that a record of the complainant’s dissenting views is placed on the file. Mrs C has set out her views in her formal complaint, so this has already been achieved. There is no further role for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint because we can achieve nothing significant by doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman