Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a child protection matter. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council’s offer of a financial remedy was inadequate after it considered her complaint using the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
2. Mrs X said the Council’s actions caused distress.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to significantly increase the financial remedy it has offered her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X was a Council-registered foster carer. Mrs X complained to the Council about its handling of a child protection matter.
8. 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.
9. 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
10. There was significant delay in the Council considering Mrs X’s complaint through the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council offered £950 as a symbolic financial remedy to recognise the delay which Mrs X accepted. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, so we could not add to this.
11. I have reviewed all the documents from Mrs X’s complaint and note that:

• each part of the complaint was considered and addressed by the Council;
• parts of the complaint were upheld and so require no further scrutiny.
• on the points of the complaint which were not upheld, the findings of the stage two investigator do not appear obviously unreasonable, given the evidence summarised in the report.

12. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said if I were to re-investigate the complaint.
13. Mrs X wants the Council to increase the payment it has offered, in recognition of – as she sees it – the significant distress. The Council has already offered £600.
14. I recognise Mrs X is unhappy with this, but the offer appears in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance and appears to recognise distress that was severe and prolonged.
15. I have considered Mrs X’s desired outcome from complaining to us. We cannot achieve this. The Ombudsman cannot instruct the Council to pay compensation, only a court can do this.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman