London Borough of Bexley (24 008 898)

Category : Children's care services > Looked after children

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 01 Nov 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been at fault in its response to the complainant’s daughter’s needs and his subsequent complaint. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council has been at fault in its response to his daughter’s needs and his subsequent complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 would not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
  • investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X’s daughter became a Child in Need in 2022 following a period in the Council’s care. Mr X made a complaint to the Council in 2023, prompted by its response to a specific incident. However, the complaint the Council responded to consisted of 19 separate, though related, matters.
  2. The complaint completed the three stages of the statutory children’s services procedure and was upheld in part. Mr X is critical of the way his complaint was considered at Stages 2 and 3 of the procedure.
  3. At Stage 2, Mr X contends that the Investigating Officer overlooked or misinterpreted correspondence he provided, and that this led to flawed conclusions. He also says the Investigating Officer declined to consider evidence of what he regarded as failings on the Council’s part since he made his complaint.
  4. At Stage 3, Mr X complains that the Review Panel was not willing to hear from him regarding the correspondence, and he regards the Director’s final response at the end of the process as dismissive. He believes the Council should uphold all heads of his complaint in full.
  5. When deciding whether a complaint fall to be investigated, it is not for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate complaints which have been investigated to a reasonable standard by the authority concerned. The statutory procedure was the appropriate way to investigate the matters Mr X raised. The question for us therefore is whether there is clear evidence of significant fault in the way the statutory procedure was applied. Having considered the complaints and responses at all stages, I can identify no such evidence.
  6. At Stage 2, the Investigating officer was entitled to exclude newer matter from the investigation. The Stage 2 was report comprehensive and the outcomes defensible. Mr X is entitled to disagree with the findings and Stage 3 provided him with the route by which to challenge them.
  7. The fact both the Stage 3 Review Panel and the Director changed earlier findings and recommendations demonstrates that they did not fail to properly consider the matters before them. Rather, it demonstrates a proper level of scrutiny.
  8. 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 lead to a different outcome and is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings