Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about special guardianship payments. Doing so would not lead to a different outcome to that already achieved through the Council’s own complaint process.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to comply with a court order that stated special guardianship payments would be “ongoing.” He said it stopped payments, then re-instated them, then reduced them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• 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.

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

3. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including a copy of the court order.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The court order stated that the amount of the weekly payment (£500) was “to be reviewed at the point when [the younger child] is 5 and annually thereafter”. It stated this was “a long-term commitment” that would “necessitate review” and may be subject to change”. The order did not require the Council to maintain the payment at £500 weekly.
7. The Council’s own policy required it to maintain an agreed payment for two years after the date of a special guardianship order (SGO).
8. The Council withdrew the weekly payment when the younger child turned five. This was fault because it did not adhere to its own policy, which meant the payments should have continued for another six months until two years after the SGO. However, when Mr X challenged it, the Council accepted this was wrong and made up the payments missed. There is thus no remaining injustice in the form of lost payments from this period.
9. The Council reviewed the weekly payments six months later and decided to pay a lower weekly rate. This was not fault because it did not breach the court order, which did not require it to maintain the payments at £500 weekly after the younger child turned five.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• Doing so would not lead to a different outcome already achieved through the council’s complaint process; and
• There is no remaining financial injustice caused by fault that would warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman