Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council restricting his contact with his grandchild or that it stopped him from becoming their connected carer. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered his complaint to justify our involvement. The Council has accepted there were delays in its complaint handling. It has agreed to pay Mr X £200 to remedy any injustice caused. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not be proportionate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council restricted his contact with his grandchild after it had agreed he could be a connected carer for them. He said the Council failed to communicate with him properly, misrepresented information about him and delayed court proceedings. He said the Council’s actions had caused significant upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take..

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B), section 24A(7))

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 law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. Where a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we considered the investigations were flawed.
7. The Council issued a stage one response to Mr X in 2021. It then placed his complaint on hold because of concurrent court proceedings. The law allows the Council to do that.
8. At stage two, the Council appointed an Independent Officer (IO) to investigate and Independent Person (IP). They spoke with Mr X to agree the statement of complaint. The IO considered Mr X’s grandchild’s case records and interviewed officers involved in the complaint. The IO did not uphold most of the complaints. They set out their reasons for his. However, they did identify a delay in the Council starting the stage two investigation after court completed.
9. The Council arranged a stage three panel as Mr X was unhappy with the findings of the stage two report. The panel considered the adequacy of the stage two investigation, spoke to Mr X and officers and reached findings on each complaint.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his contact with his grandchild and the Council’s decision not to allow him to become a connected carer further. That is because there is no evidence the Council’s investigation was flawed. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
11. The Council has accepted there were delays in its complaint handling. Within four weeks of this decision, it has agreed to pay Mr X £200 for any injustice caused by these delays. This is in line with our guidance on remedies. Therefore, it would not be proportionate to investigate this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough fault in how the Council considered his complaint to justify our involvement. It has agreed a financial remedy for any injustice caused therefore it would not be proportionate to investigate further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman