Summary: Ms X’s complaint relates to issues concerning the statutory complaints process, and alleged flawed investigations undertaken at Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the process. We have discontinued our investigation. The complaint has previously been subject to a detailed independent investigation and review, and further investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or lead to a significantly different or worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X alleges that Council failed to follow statutory procedures and timeframes, obstructed transparency with inaccurate data, and did not make necessary adjustments for her needs. Ms X contends that both the Stage 2 and Stage 3 Panels were mishandled and lacked reasonable adjustments, and Stage 3 was marred by technical issues, insufficient time, and influence within the Council that otherwise affected the Panel. Ms X says the failure to address her reasonable adjustments and advocacy issues further compromised the process. Ms X also contends that the substantive investigations undertaken were flawed and should be reinvestigated by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused significant injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. As part of this investigation, I have considered the complaint and information provided by Ms X and the Council. Ms X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered all comments provided before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Statutory complaints procedure

4. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.

Back to top

What happened

5. I have included a chronology of events below; this is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
6. The Independent Investigation Officer’s Report (IO) was produced toward the end of July 23. The report upheld, and partially upheld five of the complaint points, did not uphold six of the complaint points, and made no finding on one complaint point.
7. The following day, the Council sent its Stage 2 outcome letter, accepting the findings set out in the IO report.
8. The Review Panel at Stage 3 convened in mid-October 23. It noted that five of the seven desired outcomes had been achieved, and that one would be actioned via a request to carry out an assessment.
9. The outcome letter following the Review Panel hearing was sent to Ms X shortly after. The letter made two separate remedy offers to Ms X in light of the IO’s and Panel’s findings.

Back to top

Analysis

Ms X’s request for the Ombudsman to investigate

10. The Council appointed an Independent Investigating Officer (IO) to complete a review of Ms X’s complaint. The IO was sent information from Ms X regarding her grounds for complaint and also liaised those concerned. The statement of complaint included 12 issues.
11. The IO produced a detailed report and upheld or partly upheld five complaint points, did not uphold six complaints, and made no finding on one complaint. The Council, at Stage 2, accepted the findings of the IO report.
12. The case was later heard before a review Panel, the Panel consisted of three independent attendees, and was further attended by others involved in the complaint, including but not limited to Ms X, her advocate, the Independent Investigator, and a Complaints Manager from the Council. The Panel on all points maintained the findings of the IO, except on one partially upheld point, which it did not uphold and one not upheld point, which it unanimously upheld.
13. The Review Panel noted that there were seven desired outcomes sought by Ms X, and it reached the view that three of the outcomes had been achieved and confirmed. The Panel also noted that three separate outcomes were regarding a financial remedy for distress and trouble, and the remaining outcome would be actioned through a request to carry out an assessment.
14. The Stage 3 outcome letter proposed a remedy offer of £400 for distress and trouble following acknowledgment of the financial remedy sought by Ms X. The Stage 3 outcome letter also recommended a further £150 for a complaint point it incorrectly concluded the Ombudsman had upheld.
15. Ms X wants the Ombudsman to reinvestigate issues the IO and Panel has already considered. Ms X believes that both stages were marred by issues that otherwise affected the integrity of the process and the outcome.
16. I recognise Ms X believes that reinvestigation of the complaint might lead to a different result and outcome, however:
• The IO’s report is thorough and detailed, and it is unlikely on balance that reinvestigation would lead to a significantly different result;
• The Review Panel, in most instances, maintained the views unanimously found by the IO; and
• Six of the seven desired outcomes, the significant majority, were achieved.
17. I am therefore satisfied that further investigation into the matter would not serve to deliver a different outcome, and this forms the basis for my decision to discontinue the investigation.

Additional points of complaint

18. Ms X raised further concerns regarding both the statutory complaints process and the conduct of the Review Panel. These include claims of failure to follow statutory processes, lack of transparency, and ongoing failure to make reasonable adjustments.
19. Specifically, Ms X believes that technical issues, insufficient time allocation, and the influence of the Complaints Manager impacted the integrity of the Stage 2 and Stage 3 proceedings. She asserts that these procedural flaws affected the fairness and accuracy of the investigation and that the communication guidelines necessary to accommodate her disabilities were ignored.
20. While these issues may have merit, they are unlikely to lead to a significantly different or worthwhile outcome if investigated. Procedural breaches, such as delays and transparency concerns, are important but would not necessarily alter the fundamental findings of the IO or the Review Panel. Similarly, while the failure to make reasonable adjustments and the technical issues at the Stage 3 panel are valid points of contention, addressing these would not materially change the outcome of the substantive complaint, which has already been reviewed and considered in detail – and one of which as described in paragraph 17, I have proposed not to reinvestigate.
21. Given that the core elements of the complaint have been addressed and the majority of the desired outcomes have been achieved, I maintain my decision to discontinue the investigation as further investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome on the additional points of complaint made by Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have discontinued my investigation. The complaint has previously been subject to a detailed independent investigation and review, and further investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or lead to a significantly different or worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman