Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay progressing his complaint through its statutory complaints procedure along with the Council’s decision not to uphold many of his complaint points. We will not investigate the complaint about the Council’s investigation as there is no evidence of fault in the way it made its decision. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint regarding the delay because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a £250 financial award for the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not uphold all his complaint points and significantly delayed progressing the complaint through its statutory complaints process. He said he experienced stress and health problems due to the Council’s actions.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X made numerous complaints to the Council about its safeguarding of his grandchildren. The Council replied promptly at Stage 1 of its statutory complaints process but did not deliver the Stage 2 response for 6 months. The Council also delayed providing the Stage 3 response. The Council upheld some of Mr X’s complaint points but did not uphold the rest.
7. Mr X wants the Ombudsman to find the Council at fault for the content and delay of the Stage 2 and Stage 3 responses. The Ombudsman does not re-investigate statutory complaints where there is no evidence the investigation was flawed or that the Council was at fault in how it made its decision. We will therefore not investigate this complaint point.
8. If we investigated Mr X’s complaint regarding the delay, it is likely that we would find fault because the delay was significant and likely caused Mr X frustration and inconvenience. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by its actions by providing a £250 financial award to resolve the complaint early.

Back to top

Agreed Action

9. To its credit, the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint and will provide Mr X with a £250 financial award within one month of the date of the final decision to put things right.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint regarding the Council’s decision not to uphold his complaint points as there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council conducted its investigation. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint regarding the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman