Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection and child in need action carried out by the Council in relation to the complainant’s family because investigation would achieve nothing significant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council has been at fault throughout its engagement and communication with her family. She complains that the fault is ongoing, despite her formal complaint being substantially upheld.

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:

• 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, or

(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. Mrs X’s family has been the subject of child protection and child in need action carried out by the Council. As a result, she and other family members have been caused significant distress and the relationship with her eldest daughter, who is now a looked-after child, has been damaged.
6. Mrs X and her husband made a formal complaint to the Council, which was considered under the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. The complaint was substantially upheld, although no fault was found in relation to the agreement for Mrs X’s daughter to become a looked-after child. The Council apologised to Mrs X and her husband and accepted the recommendations made in the course of the complaint process.
7. Ms X complains that, despite the findings of fault, the Council continues to fail to communicate properly. She alleges that it is refusing to provide information to which she is legally entitled, on the grounds that her daughter is “Gillick competent”. She argues that this cannot be the case, as her child is still a minor and she and her husband legally share her care with the Council.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because investigation would not achieve anything significant. The complaint documents demonstrate that the matter was properly considered under the statutory procedure. The outcome was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case, and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to reconsider the matter.
9. The concept of Gillick competence only applies to minors. It is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether Mrs X’s child is Gillick competent. This is for the professional judgement of those involved in her care. If Mrs X believes the Council’s view conflicts with the court’s wishes, her recourse is to go back to court. If she believes the Council is withholding information to which she is entitled, it is open to her to make a request under data protection legislation. There is no role for the Ombudsman in either case.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because investigation would achieve nothing significant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman