Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to contact with and the welfare of the complainant’s daughter. This is because our intervention would not add to the investigation which has already been carried out, or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council has failed to act to ensure a proper level of contact with her daughter and in response to her concerns about her daughter’s welfare.

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 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. Mrs X’s daughter is the subject of a full care order and is currently placed with her father. Mrs X has brought concerns about her daughter’s welfare to the Council’s attention. Specifically, she has said that her daughter has been alienated from her by her father. She further complains that the Council has failed to ensure that the contact arrangements agreed in court have been adhered to, and has failed to ensure that she and other family members have contact with her daughter.
6. Mrs X made a formal complaint which was addressed under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. The complaint was made up of 15 separate parts. In the course of the three stages of the statutory procedure, one part of the complaint was upheld and one upheld in part. However, the bulk of the complaint was not upheld.
7. Mrs X does not accept the findings of the complaint procedure. She says the issues she complained about persist, and that the Council’s officers are treating her less favourably because she made a complaint.
8. The Council has fully accepted the findings and recommendations made under the statutory complaint procedure. The statutory procedure is the appropriate route by which to complain about such matters and it is not for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate complaints which have been properly investigated.
9. The question therefore is whether there is evidence of significant fault in the statutory procedure which has affected the outcome. Having considered the complaints and responses at all stages, I can identify no such evidence.
10. There is nothing to suggest fault in the way the Investigating Officer and Independent Person considered the complaint at Stage 2. The Investigating Officer’s report is comprehensive and the outcome defensible. Stage 3 provided Mrs X with the route by which to challenge the findings. I note that she had the opportunity to make verbal representations to the Review Panel, which the record shows it considered.
11. To conclude, the evidence shows that the statutory children’s services complaint procedure was properly implemented, and its findings were reasonable and defensible. That being the case, it is not for the Ombudsman to criticise the merits of the findings or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Our intervention would not add to the investigation which has already been carried out, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because our intervention would not add to the investigation which has already been carried out, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman