Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (19 015 033)

Category : Children's care services > Other

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 04 May 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council’s children’s services department. He is seeking substantial compensation. I have discontinued my investigation because I cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained about the actions of the Council’s children’s services department.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
    • The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
    • Documents and comments from the Council.
  2. Mr X and the Council both had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. Mr X complained to the Council in January 2018. He said the Council failed to offer support and services to his mother and two brothers, failed to provide a consistent service, failed to communicate between departments, and failed to offer financial support to his grandmother who looked after one of his brother’s after his mother died.
  2. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint at all three stages of the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure, which included an independent investigation and recommendations from a review panel (the panel).
  3. After the stage two investigation, the Council apologised for some of its failings and offered Mr X’s brothers £750 each to recognise the distress caused. It also offered a payment of £1,200 to Mr X’s grandmother for support payments she was entitled to over a 24-week period.
  4. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s apology and proposed financial remedy. He also wanted clarification about whether the Council would remove the reference to anti-social behaviour from his brother’s files. The complaint therefore progressed to a stage three review panel.
  5. The panel upheld or partly upheld all of Mr X’s complaint. It recommended the Council:
    • Revisit the compensation offered, taking account of delays and emotional impact on the family.
    • Place a note on Mr X’s brother’s files to say reference to anti-social behaviour is invalid.
    • Remind staff of their duties following the panel’s findings.
    • Set out procedures to escalate early help issues to the correct services.
  6. In its final stage three response the Council agreed with the panel’s findings, but it did not offer a further apology. It confirmed:
    • It placed a statement on Mr X’s brother’s files saying they had not displayed anti-social behaviour.
    • It revisited its offer of compensation, but felt its offer was suitable.
    • It would arrange a meeting with Mr X to discuss learning from the complaint.
    • The services providing support and mechanisms in place to escalate cases where there is a dispute about the service and who should provide it. It will ensure this is communicated to all staff, so they are aware of how to escalate cases in future.
  7. Mr X asked the Ombudsman to review the complaint and the financial remedy the Council offered. He said the Council showed a lack of empathy and did not fully recognise the delays and emotional impact on the family.

Back to top

Analysis

  1. Mr X’s complaint has been through the Council’s complaint’s procedure. The panel made findings on each element of his complaint. It also made recommendations which the Council acted on. I cannot add anything to its investigation.
  2. The Council’s offer to place a corrective note on Mr X’s brother’s file is suitable. We would not expect the Council to delete entries from a child’s records.
  3. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s apology due to what he sees as a lack of empathy. In my view, the Council should have apologised again in its final complaint response following the panel’s findings. However, on the evidence seen, the Council has apologised for its failings. It also offered Mr X a meeting to discuss the panel’s findings and his desired outcomes, but Mr X declined.
  4. As well as a further apology, Mr X wants the Council to increase its offer of compensation.
  5. Where I find fault, which has caused an injustice, I can recommend a financial remedy if I consider a complainant has suffered distress as a result.
  6. The Ombudsman has produced guidance on the remedies we recommend. This confirms “our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might”.
  7. We aim to put complainants back in the same position they would have been in if the fault had not occurred. Where this is not possible we may recommend symbolic payments to recognise the injustice caused.
  8. Our guidance states a payment to recognise distress will often be between £100 and £300. Sometimes, we may recommend more, if the distress is severe or prolonged.
  9. This is not intended to represent full compensation for what happened. The Ombudsman cannot decide the monetary value of the distress a person has suffered. That is the role of the Courts.
  10. The Council’s financial offer to Mr X is higher than the normal range of distress payments in our guidance. Mr X feels the offer is inadequate, but I cannot place a figure on the distress his family suffered. I am therefore unable to recommend substantial compensation for the Council’s failings.
  11. Because of this, I cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants, and I will discontinue my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have discontinued my investigation because I cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

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