Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council has been at fault in its involvement with her and in the care of her children. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the investigation the Council has carried out, or that our intervention would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs B, complains that the Council has been at fault in its involvement with her and in the care of her children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mrs B has said in support of her complaint and the complaint documents provided by the Council. I have offered Mrs B the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Four of Mrs B’s children are in the Council’s care. One went into foster care in 2017 and the three youngest did so in 2019. Mrs B complains about the care of the children throughout this period. She complains that social workers called her a liar, and that they failed to ensure the welfare of her children in foster care.
5. Mrs B’s complaint to the Council was considered under the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. It was upheld it part. Mrs B does not accept the complaint findings and wants the matter investigated further.
6. Having considered the findings at Stages 2 and 3 of the complaint procedure I find that there are insufficient grounds for us to investigate Mrs B’s complaint. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to re-investigate complaints which have already been upheld, and I note that the Council has accepted where it has been shown to be at fault and has apologised. Specifically, it has made clear that it does not believe Mrs B lied. There is no role for us here.
7. Regarding those aspects of the complaint which were not upheld, Mrs B was able to give her view of the social workers’ actions, and the relevant Council staff were interviewed. At Stage 2 and Stage 3 the independent Investigating Officer and the members of the Review Panel considered the evidence before them and there is nothing to indicate fault in the way they did so.
8. Mrs B disagrees with the outcome of the complaint procedure. But that does not mean the outcome was unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. Without evidence of fault in the way the Investigating Officer and Review Panel reached their conclusions, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the outcome or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Investigation by the Ombudsman would therefore be unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the investigation the Council has carried out, or that our intervention would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman