Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about historic events involving the Council’s children’s services team. It is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome the complainant would like.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complained about the actions of the Council’s children’s services team when it became involved with her family from 1980. Ms X says the Council should have done more when her mother was admitted to hospital. Ms X is unhappy the Council did not question her mother about allegations of abuse and instead focused on her father. The Council has responded to Ms X’s complaints, but Ms X wants it to show “sincere remorse” for what happened.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In its responses to Ms X’s complaints the Council has provided a chronology of its involvement with Ms X and her family. It said it was sorry its first response did not show “enough remorse.” It explained the available records were limited. It was not able to say who first diagnosed Ms X’s mother’s illness when she was admitted to hospital in 1980 or what then happened.
6. The Council said it must have been distressing when Ms X’s father was questioned. It was “perhaps right this happened” but it apologised for the “enduring distress” this had caused.
7. The Council explained record keeping was different in the 1980s and it appears that some of Ms X’s records have been lost. The Council said the experiences Ms X described must have been distressing and “have left some very painful memories” for which it was sorry.
8. It is clear how important the issues at the heart of Ms X’s complaint are to her. But we will not start an investigation.
9. There are clearly limited records available, and the events complained about took place around 40 years ago. The Council has provided the information it is able to and apologised. If we investigated, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Councils response about what happened.
10. Ms X would like the Council to show “sincere remorse”. But I consider its responses to be proportionate. If we investigated, it is unlikely we would recommend the Council offer a revised response to Ms X and so we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response or achieve the outcome Ms X would like.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman