Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub and its Early Help team. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response and we cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained about the Council’s Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) and its Early Help Team. Miss X complained safeguarding issues she had identified were not addressed and her case was rushed and quickly withdrawn. Miss X wants disciplinary action taken against the staff involved, compensation, and a referral for her son.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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

What I found

Complaint response

6. I have summarised below some of the key points from the Council’s responses to Miss X’s complaints.
• The Police had visited Miss X’s property and its officers felt that Miss X would benefit from “direct 1:1 interaction with Social Services”.
• The Council’s MASH is the single point of contact for all requests for Early Help and Statutory Intervention.
• The Council was sorry if Miss X felt questions asked by a member of staff from the MASH were negative or leading.
• The Council provided verbal feedback to Miss X about her case, but a written response would have been helpful.
• Reports the Council had access to did not state when the Police had visited Miss X’s property, but they did refer to two incidents. The Council would update its notes to show there was a single visit.
• The Council’s MASH had referred Miss X’s case to its Early Help Service and there was no evidence support was stopped or extra support denied. Early Help identified the appropriate services to offer support to Miss X.
• The Council was sorry if Miss X felt her needs were not heard during a telephone call with Early Help and if her name was mispronounced during a telephone call.
• A meeting which was cancelled should have been rearranged.
• It could not say if an Early Help worker had made an incorrect statement about Miss X’s son, but it had not been reported or recorded on the Council’s case management system.
• The Council set out the actions it would take following Miss X’s complaints.

Assessment

7. The role of the Ombudsman is not to act as a right of appeal for people who disagree with a council’s decision. It is also not our role to say what support a council should provide someone when it receives a referral to one of its services - such as its MASH. We can only consider how the Council reached a decision. Unless there are significant flaws in the decision-making process, we have no powers to become involved.
8. We also need to consider what more we could achieve if we did investigate. If we cannot achieve the outcomes somebody wants, we will not normally investigate.
9. In this case, Miss X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with a referral it received, first to its MASH. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council considered the referral, contacted Miss X, and decided to pass the case to its Early Help Team. It then decided the best way to support Miss X and her family. These are decisions of professional judgement and there is not enough evidence of fault in how they were reached for us to question them.
10. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council identified various issues with the way it had handled her case, apologised, and set out some improvements it would make to its services.
11. Despite the issues the Council identified, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant us investigating. We could not say the Council’s decisions were so flawed we should become involved. Given the Council’s responses to Miss X’s complaints, it is unlikely we could add anything further.
12. It is not for us to say what support the Council should provide, nor can we recommend the Council discipline a member of staff. We also do not award compensation – that is a matter for the courts. We cannot therefore achieve the outcomes Miss X wants and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because it unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, and we cannot achieve the outcomes Miss X would like.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman