Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council taking too long to secure a passport for Mr X’s foster child. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to Mr X in the way the Council dealt with his complaint, or the way it responded to the recommendations made by a final stage panel, to warrant investigation by us.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council took too long to secure a passport for his foster child. He said it left an unwarranted reference to placement instability on the child’s records.
2. He said the Council failed to implement the recommendations of a final stage panel, including holding a meeting with him.
3. He also complained about delay by the Council handling his complaint.
4. He said the price of a planned holiday trip increased significantly during that time. He also said he was unable to work overseas as a result because the child’s trauma made travel without them impossible for him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

7. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
8. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.
9. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered information provided by the complainant, which included the full complaint correspondence with the Council.
11. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

12. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint via the statutory complaints procedure for children’s social care complaints. The Council completed all three stages. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the process was carried out other than the time it took.
13. The complaint process found there had been delay by the Council issuing a passport. There is no good reason for us to re-investigate the same matter.
14. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in carrying out the final panel’s recommendations to warrant investigation by us. The panel told the Council to cover the difference in holiday costs and the Council paid £3000 to cover the difference. If Mr X has evidence to show this does not reflect the actual difference in cost he should provide it to the Council for it to consider in the first instance. The Panel did not recommend compensation for loss of earnings, reputational harm or defamatory statements, so we would not expect the Council to make payment. At this point, there is not enough evidence to say the council has failed to meet the final stage panel’s recommendation. A failure to hold a meeting with Mr X would not have amounted to enough fault to warrant investigation by us.
15. The Council’s delayed final response to Mr X’s complaint is unlikely to have created enough injustice on its own to warrant investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr X in the way the Council dealt with his complaint, or in its adherence to the recommendations of a final stage panel, to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman