Summary: The Council was at fault for not responding to part of
Ms B’s complaint. Although some of the complaint was too old and some of it related to court – which were the Council’s reasons for refusing to respond – this did not apply to her complaint about events from February to December 2022. The Council has now agreed to process Ms B’s complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms B, complains that, between February and December 2022, the Council refused to provide support to her and her daughter. I refer to her daughter as C.
2. Ms B also complains that the Council refused to deal with her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Ms B and the Council. Both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. In January 2023 Ms B made a complaint to the Council about its children’s social work department’s failure to support her (as C’s mother) for the previous two years.
8. Much of Ms B’s complaint to the Council was about events in 2021. The Council decided that, as these events were more than 12 months old, it would not investigate them. This appears a reasonable decision.
9. The Council also decided that another part of Ms B’s complaint – about events from December 2020 onwards, after C moved out of her home – concerned matters which were for a court, not the Council (as Ms B wanted C back from her grandmother’s, where she had moved to). Again, this appears a reasonable decision.
10. However, Ms B also complained to the Council about events between February and December 2022 (when the Council decided not to provide to support to her on three separate occasions). These events appear to have been neither too old nor linked to court proceedings.
11. The Council did not answer this part of Ms B’s complaint, for which it was at fault.
12. Although Ms B has asked to the Ombudsman to consider the substantive issues she lists in her complaint, we would only do so if it is unreasonable to ask the Council to process the complaint first. In this case, I do not consider it unreasonable for the Council to do so.
13. If Ms B is dissatisfied with how the Council deals with her complaint, she can return to the Ombudsman and ask us to investigate the complaint again.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to process Ms B’s complaint about its refusal to provide her with support between February and December 2022. It will do so in line with whichever complaints procedure it considers applicable.
15. The Council has agreed to provide us with evidence it has done this.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Council was at fault for not responding to part of Ms B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman