Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement in the complainants family. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the investigation the Council has carried out, or that our intervention would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Miss C, complains about the Council’s children’s services involvement in her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss C and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss C complains about the actions of Council’s children’s services during a child protection investigation involving her family.
7. Miss C’s complaint to the Council was considered under the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. At stage two of the process a statement of complaint was agreed between the Independent Officer and Miss C. The complaint was upheld it part. Miss C does not accept the complaint findings and wants the matter investigated further. Miss C also wants an additional element of her complaint to be investigated.
8. Having considered the findings at Stages 2 and 3 of the complaint procedure I find that there are insufficient grounds for us to investigate Miss C’s complaint. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to re-investigate complaints which have already been upheld, and I note that the Council has accepted where it has been shown to be at fault and has apologised and accepted the recommendations made. There is nothing further we could add to this.
9. Regarding those aspects of the complaint which were not upheld, Miss C was able to give her view of the social workers’ actions, and the relevant Council staff were interviewed. At Stage 2 and Stage 3 the independent Investigating Officer and the members of the Review Panel considered the evidence before them and there is nothing to indicate fault in the way they did so.
10. Miss C disagrees with the outcome of the complaint procedure. But that does not mean the outcome was unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. Without evidence of fault in the way the Investigating Officer and Review Panel reached their conclusions, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the outcome or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Any investigation by the Ombudsman would therefore be unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out.
11. Finally, Miss C says that not all of the elements of her complaint were considered during the process. However, the Review Panel did consider this point, but noted that Miss C had raised new issues after the completion of the stage two investigation and that were not included in the agreed statement of complaint. The panel therefore concluded it could not consider additional issues. It is unlikely any further investigation would find fault with this approach.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the investigation the Council has carried out, or that our intervention would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman