Summary: The Council was at fault for how it assessed Mr B and
Mrs C’s son’s needs and made plans for his care. However, it has already offered suitable remedies for the injustice caused and no further action is required.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I refer to as Mr B and Mrs C, complain about how the Council assessed risk to, and made accommodation plans for, their teenage son. I refer to their son as D.
2. Mr B and Mrs C say the Council failed to offer them enough compensation for the distress they and D suffered. They are clear that, although money is not a particular priority for them, they feel a significantly increased payment may be the only way to ensure the Council learns lessons from its mistakes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 a council made its decision. If there was no fault in how the council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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 Mrs C 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. If a complaint has already been through the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure – which Mr B and Mrs C’s complaint has – this means the complainants have already had access to an independent investigation.
8. Consequently, we will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed.
9. The independent investigator upheld all of Mr B and Mrs C’s complaint. He found that the Council had not acted in line with guidance and had reached unfair and unevidenced conclusions about Mr B, Mrs C and D. He also found the Council had failed to communicate properly with Mr B, Mrs C or other professionals.
10. I note that:
• The independent investigator considered each part of Mr B and Mrs C’s complaint in detail.
• Mr B and Mrs C say they are satisfied with how the independent investigation was carried out.
• The Council agreed with all the independent investigator’s conclusions.
• The Council has accepted fault for the entire complaint.
• The Council has also set out a number of ways in which it intends to improve its service.
11. This means there is no need for any reinvestigation of Mr B and Mrs C’s complaint. It is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said. If I were to investigate, it is also unlikely that this would lead to a different outcome for Mr B, Mrs C or D.
12. The sole point of disagreement between Mr B, Mrs C and the Council is that of a financial remedy. The Council has offered £1,000 each to Mr B and Mrs C to recognise the distress they, and D, suffered.
13. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says we do not punish councils in the way a court might. This means we do not award ‘damages’ or ‘compensation’ (which are sometimes available to the victims of crime). Instead, we can ask a council to make a payment to ‘symbolise and acknowledge’ the distress someone has suffered because of what it did wrong.   
14. Where we decide it is appropriate, we normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. But we can recommend higher payments if we decide the distress was especially severe or prolonged.
15. The Council has offered payments to Mr B and Mrs C which, if shared equally between themselves and D, amount to over £650 each. These would be in excess of our usual range and appear to recognise Mr B and Mrs C’s view that they and D suffered particularly significant distress.
16. As I have said above, this is not to say that such payments adequately compensate for any distress caused by the Council. But they are not intended to. They are symbolic payments, and, as they are not obviously out of step with our guidance, I will not recommend that any further action be taken.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Council was at fault for how it assessed D’s needs and made plans for his care. However, it has already offered suitable remedies and no further action is required.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman