Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council informing other authorities about the standard of accommodation it found when carrying out an inspection. This is not warranted by the evidence of fault. Matters of defamation and slander are for a court.

The complaint

1. Ms X, who represents a provider of accommodation for young people aged 16 and above, said the Council was wrong to advise other authorities not to place children in accommodation it provided. She said this was slanderous and amounted to defamation.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has child protection duties under s.47 of the Children Act 1989. If it has reason to suspect that a child of children may be suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm, it must take what action it deems necessary to safeguard the child or children. That includes alerting other individuals or organisations if it deems this necessary to safeguard other children. Children become adults when they turn 18.
7. The correspondence I have seen shows the Council carried out an inspection of a property, provided by the provider, where a 17-year-old was living in May 2021. The inspection, which was accompanied by photographs of the property, found a dead rat, mould, and dirty and broken furniture.
8. Given the reported state of the property, as supported by photographs, it would not have been fault for the Council to decide it was unfit for the child to live in. It would also not have been fault for it to decide he was at risk of suffering significant harm in terms of s.47 of the Children Act 1989. It follows that it would not have been fault to alert other authorities that might have placed or be likely to place children in the same accommodation to what it found.
9. We are not able to determine whether a matter is defamation or slander. That would be for a court to decide.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant it. She has a right to approach a court it would be reasonable to use if she wishes to pursue the matters of defamation or slander.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman