Summary: We will not investigate how the Council responded to Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaints related to children’s services. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We have already investigated most of their complaints and we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s ongoing communications with Mr X and Mrs Y.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains - on behalf of Mrs Y and himself - that the Council has failed to make reasonable adjustments in its dealings with Mrs Y. Mr X says Mrs Y’s complaints have not been treated fairly and incorrect reports have been created for the Family Court.
2. Mr X says they have been treated as vexatious so cannot challenge the Council. This has caused them both stress. They would like an apology and access to the complaint’s procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainants, the Council and our previous investigation in to Mr X’s complaint.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. The complainants had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I read their responses carefully before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Last year, Mr X made a complaint to us about the Council’s children’s services team. We found fault causing injustice in the form of distress to Mr X. This was on one complaint element only: the lack of information provided to Mr X and Mrs Y before child protection conferences took place. The Council agreed to pay Mr X a financial payment to remedy Mr X’s distress.
9. Mr X now says, on behalf of Mrs Y, that the Council has not made reasonable adjustments, failed to provide advocacy and lacks understanding of Mrs Y’s autism.
10. On the information I have seen I believe Mr X is trying to revisit most of his previous complaint matters by making this complaint. Again, the context in which he says reasonable adjustments were not made, advocacy not provided, and autism not understood was in connection with the child protection matters ultimately sanctioned in court. So, the matters Mr X’s disagrees with the Council about are due to the Council’s actions in the court proceedings, reports and evidence. So, Mr X’s potential remedy lies via the court, and we cannot investigate.
11. I would have expected Mr X and Mrs Y to raise these issues at court. I also note a reference in the complaint documents to Mr X and Mrs Y having legal representation, so it does not appear they were without anyone to advocate on their behalf.
12. Therefore, we are prohibited from considering any of this as the crux of the complaint relates to matters already decided in court and Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the way the Council are trying to implement the Children in Need plan decided in court. I have seen an email sent in July 2021 from the children’s social worker asking Mr X to respond to her, not another person as he prefers, to urgently arrange the welfare meetings to implement the Children in Need plan ordered in court.
13. I consider the only new complaint element is the Council applying its ‘Persistent or Vexatious Complainants’ policy on Mr X’s communications. It says this is due to the frequency and nature of Mr X’s contact with it. Mr X says this is unfair and an attempt to silence him as he has been told he can only now contact one named officer via email.
14. The Council has said its complaint process is still available to Mr X and Mrs Y providing the Council decides his complaints are new, justified and not unreasonable.
15. Overall, the information I have seen shows Mr X trying to make many complaints in connection with matters that were decided in court and other matters investigated by the Ombudsman. The Council appears to have acted in line with its policy when defining Mr X as vexatious. I do not see evidence of fault to justify investigating Mr X’s complaint about being deemed vexatious.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we have already considered most of this and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating the complaint about being labelled vexatious.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman