Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council preventing Mr X seeing his now-adult son’s bank account statement before he turned 18, and the late circulation of minutes in advance of a looked-after child review for another child. Investigating these matters would not lead to a different or worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to dela with his complaint properly. He said it upheld both points of complaint, but failed to provide a suitable remedy, or to escalate the complaint to the final stage of the statutory process for children’s social care complaints. He wanted a personal apology.

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:

• 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s complaint concerns two children. The first complaint concerns a son, now an adult, and Mr X’s right to see the child’s bank statement before the child tuned 18. We have no consent from Mr X’s son, and the son’s ability to consent is itself in question. We could not investigate this matter without the son’s consent, and any investigation would run the risk of coming into conflict with matters currently in dispute that are only likely to be resolved by the court of protection. Even if that were not so, the matter in question relates to access to data, which the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) would be better placed than us to consider. This is because it has powers to order disclosure that we lack.
7. The second complaint concerns the Council’s late circulation of documents in advance of a looked-after child (LAC) review for a younger child. The Council has apologised for this, which is sufficient for the injustice caused. We could not add anything to that, and we do not recommend council officers at any seniority apologise in person rather than corporately.
8. Where we are not investigating a matter, it is not a good use of resources to investigate a council’s complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

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

• We lack consent to investigate the first matter, and the ICO is better placed than us to consider matters of access to data;
• The Council’s apology for the second matter is sufficient for the injustice caused, and our further involvement would not lead to a different or better outcome; and
• It is not a good use or resources to investigate complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matters complained of.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman