Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council failing to give financial and respite support in July 2019 when she cared for a relative’s children. Mrs X complains late and could have complained sooner.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains in July 2019 the Council placed her sister’s children with her due to child protection concerns. Mrs X says originally they came for one night, then stayed several more days which became 11 nights in total. Mrs X says she told the social worker, who agreed, she needed financial support because she could not work and a respite day once a week due to her mental health. The Council did not provide the help. Later it denied being responsible saying it was a family arrangement. The Council also failed to pay the cost of a taxi to take the children to a contact centre. Mrs X says the Council should pay compensation for loss of employment, injury to her mental health, and the costs of caring for the children. She says the three social workers should be investigated for malpractice.
2. Mrs X complains the Council denied receiving a subject access request from her and holds inaccurate information about her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. The information includes the complaint correspondence. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X by telephone. I have considered her replies and evidence sent in reply to the draft decision statement.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint for the following reasons:
9. The events complained about are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mrs X complains late and outside the ‘permitted period’ of 12 months (see paragraph 3 above). Mrs X complained to us on 29 September 2020.
10. I will not exercise discretion to investigate for the following reasons:
1. Mrs X could have complained sooner. I have considered Mrs X’s evidence about her mental health, pursuing the matter with the Council via a subject access request, and the impact of covid-19. I have also considered that Mrs X complained to us in 2018 (she tells me it was a solicitor on her behalf) and knew about this office. She has delayed 6 months in returning to the Ombudsman once the Council finished dealing with her complaint in December 2021.
2. The period covered by the complaint is short thereby reducing the level of injustice. We are not likely to find fault regarding the lack of respite given the short time the children were with Mrs X. The Council also says it believed Mrs X’s relative should or was giving her money.
3. There is not sufficient evidence to ask the Council to pay compensation for loss of potential earnings which Mrs X says is her main concern. She tells me in July 2019 she was not working. She expected to take up short term work until the school holiday and says an agency telephoned offering work. She says she could not accept because the children were with her. She says a social worker promised that financially “something could be arranged”. Mrs X also tells me her mental health deteriorated again during the placement.
11. A complaint seeking compensation for damage to health is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mrs X has a remedy at court (see paragraph 4). I consider it reasonable for Mrs X to use her legal remedy because the court can consider whether the Council was negligent and can award damages. The Ombudsman could not obtain the outcome Mrs X wants.
12. The Council’s complaint reply, 6 November 2020, apologised for not paying the costs of travel to a contact centre and school. The Council says it will pay the £31 owed. The apology and payment settle the complaint.
13. It is reasonable for Mrs X to go to the Information Commissioner if she has continued concerns about how the Council handles her personal information. Mrs X told the Council in 2019 she would go to the Information Commissioner and take legal advice regarding her subject access request.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council failing to give financial and respite support in July 2019 when she cared for a relative’s children. Mrs X complains late and could have complained sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman