Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way in which the Council carried out a Serious Case Review. This is because we cannot achieve anything more than the previous investigation by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss T, complains about the way in which the Council carried out a Serious Case Review (SCR). In particular she complains that:
• There was delay in completing the SCR;
• Communication with her was poor;
• The report was not appropriately shared, circulated and publicised; and
• The independence of the Chair of the SCR was questionable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Miss T, and I have sent her a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Following a trigger event which impacted on Miss T’s son, the Council carried out an SCR relating to youth violence.
5. The SCR itself is not the subject of this complaint, and would not be something that the LGSCO could consider.
6. This complaint relates to the way in which the SCR was carried out.
7. Miss T complains about delays in completing the SCR, and about poor communications with her during the investigation. Both of these complaints have been upheld by the Council. Miss T remains dissatisfied, and has complained to the Ombudsman, as she seeks further explanations for the delays, but we will not investigate these issues. This is because they have already been upheld, and further investigation by the LGSCO could achieve no more.
8. Miss T also questions whether the SCR was appropriately shared and publicised. The Council lists the organisations that have been circulated prior to its publication on the Council’s website, and I am satisfied that is has acted according to the relevant guidance.
9. Finally, Miss T questions the independence of the Chair of the SCR, as he was Chief Constable at the time of the trigger event. The Council responds that the Chair had no direct involvement in the events that triggered the SCR. It also explains that that there is no partisanship or apportioning of blame during an SCR, which has the sole aim of learning from events so as to protect and safeguard children more effectively. There is nothing for the LGSCO to add to this response.

Back to top

Final decision

10. Subject to any comments Miss T might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is nothing that we could add to the previous investigation by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman