Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about the care his son receives from the Council because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr F wants.

The complaint

1. Mr F’s son, B, is in care. Mr F is unhappy with the care B receives. He is concerned B is underweight because he is not getting the food he likes. He says B wants to come home.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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. Mr F explained his concerns about the care B receives. I have not included the details here to maintain Mr F and B’s privacy. His concerns related to the food B likes, a haircut, and leisure activities. While I do not doubt the sincerity of Mr F’s concerns, there is not significant enough injustice from these issues to justify our involvement.
6. Mr F is concerned that B has lost weight while in care and is underweight. This is of concern. But as a looked after child, B has an annual health assessment. He goes to school, and his care is overseen by an Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO). While I note Mr F does not have faith in the IRO, taken together, these are safeguards to ensure B is healthy and well looked after in the Council’s care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
7. Underlying Mr F’s complaint is the fact he disagrees with the Court’s decision to remove B from his care. Mr F says B, too, wants to come home. This is a matter for the Court, not the Ombudsman. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr F wants.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about the care his son receives from the Council because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr F wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman