Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a children’s services decision to require him to attend a face-to-face identify check and its handling of his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault and it is unlikely we could add to the investigation already completed by the Council or achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council disproportionately insisted on a face-to-face identity check to confirm his identity and legal relationship to a child he was caring for, despite this not being a legal requirement. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. He says the matter has caused distress. He wants the Council to acknowledge its mishandling of his case, apologise to him and improve its service.

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 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
• 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. It its complaint responses, the Council:
• acknowledged face-to-face identity checks were not a legal requirement but said in this case it considered it to be proportionate, necessary and best practice.
• said its references to safeguarding procedures were to advise Mr X of the potential next steps, if he did not agree to the face-to-face identity check.
• apologised for not clearly telling him when it had closed his case.
• apologised for a name spelling error in its complaint response.
6. Regarding its complaint handling, it acknowledged his concerns about the appropriateness of the stage one responding officer. As a result, the head of service conducted a review of his complaint and provided a further stage one response. It said it would not escalate the complaint further as felt it had thoroughly reviewed and addressed his complaint. It did not consider stage two escalation would provide additional benefit or lead to a different outcome. It said his concerns about its complaints handling would be used to improve its approach to future complaints.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has appropriately investigated and responded to his concerns. It has explained its reasons for requiring a face-to-face identity check. Although I accept Mr X does not agree with its approach, this is a position the Council is entitled to take and so we would not criticise this decision. It has apologised to him for the identified administrative errors. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more.
8. In response to his complaint handling concerns, the Council’s head of service reviewed the case and provided a further response. This is an appropriate action in response to his concerns. It also explained why it will not escalate his complaint further. The Council’s complaints policy allows it to decide not to conduct a further review where it considers this appropriate, so it is unlikely we would find fault with this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman