Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions following an investigation into Ms X’s complaint under the statutory children complaints procedure. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome as the Council has made an appropriate offer to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X by the faults identified.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s actions following an investigation into her complaint under the statutory children complaints procedure. She says the Council has not apologised for the faults fault and not provided an appropriate remedy.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

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. The Council investigated Ms X’s complaints under the statutory children complaints procedure. Once a complaint has been through the full statutory procedure, unless there is evidence of any flaws in the process, or where it is clear the procedure has not been robust enough, the findings should be relied upon. The Ombudsman will not reinvestigate a complaint unless there is evidence the statutory procedure was not completed appropriately.
6. In this case, I am satisfied there is no evidence to suggest the statutory procedure was not completed appropriately. I also note Ms X has not raised any concerns the process was flawed.
7. The evidence shows the Council has apologised to Ms X for the injustice caused by the faults identified during the complaints process. The Council apologised within its adjudication letters during both stage two and stage three of the statutory process.
8. The Council has also agreed to all the recommendations made by the stage three review panel, aside from one. I note the Council has provided clear reasons for why it has decided not to refer Ms X for a care act assessment; namely that the services Ms X wants cannot be provided by the Council. The Council has also provided information to Ms X regarding how she can make a self-referral if she considers her circumstances have changed. An investigation is not justified on this point as we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s decision as it has properly considered the matter and provided a clear rationale for not progressing the recommendation.
9. I also note the Council offered Ms X a financial payment of £1000. Ms X is unhappy with the offer as she doesn’t consider this recognises the full impact of the faults identified. I acknowledge Ms X’s view. However, this offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Therefore, I do not consider an investigation to be justified as it is not likely to lead to a different outcome. This is because I am satisfied the Council’s remedy offer was appropriate in the circumstances.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome as the Council has made an appropriate offer to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X by the faults identified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman