Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the management of the placement of a looked-after child. Our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council was at fault in placing a looked-after child in an inappropriate placement, failing to manage the placement, and in failing to respond appropriately to his subsequent complaint.

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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s complaint concerns the Council’s placement of a looked-after child with a private care provider. The house at which the child was placed is close to his home. Mr X says the failure to properly care for the child and the inappropriate nature of the placement led to significant disruption, anti-social behaviour and illegal activity. Mr X says the matter caused distress, fear and intimidation. He says he was compelled to incur the expense of purchasing another property, and the value of his home has been significantly reduced.
6. The evidence shows that the child was resident at the property for four months. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepts that the situation was unacceptable and has apologised to Mr X. It says it has moved the child and will place no more children with the provider. It has offered Mr X an apology and a payment of £500. Mr X does not believe the response reflects the severity of the impact of the fault on the Council’s part. Specifically, he believes the Council should reimburse him for the costs he has incurred and compensate him for the loss of value of his property.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. It is unlikely that investigation would be able to make a definitive finding that the professional judgement of officers in making the placement was flawed. So, the question for us is whether the Council acted reasonably in response to the matters Mr X brought to its attention. The correspondence shows that it did.
8. The Council substantially upheld Mr X’s complaint about the impact of the placement on him. It acted to move the child and undertook to make no further placements. The payment it offered Mr X is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. If Mr X believes he has suffered significant quantifiable loss in addition to the distress the Council has recognised, his recourse is to take the matter to court. The Ombudsman would not seek to add anything further, so our intervention is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman