Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided through Child in Need arrangements. The Council has upheld the complaint and offered an appropriate remedy. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the support she received from Children’s Social Care when her children were supported as Child in Need (CiN). She said the Council’s assessment contained incorrect information which it has failed to amend. She said despite the Council apologising for its failings it has continued to make the same mistakes.
2. She wants the Council to complete the redactions as agreed; for financial compensation for her children, and for the Council to show genuine accountability and empathy for its faults.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it, unless there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question.
7. I am satisfied the Council has properly considered Miss X’s complaints at Stage two and three of the procedure. It has upheld most of the complaints. The Stage two response provides clears reasons on the complaints it did not uphold. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
8. Following the Stage two and three investigation the Council:
• Has apologised in person and in writing for the faults identified. Those apologies came from individuals with appropriate seniority.
• Confirmed that learning from the complaint would be shared with the officers involved and the wider service through a staff learning session.
• Agreed to rectify any factual inaccuracies on Miss X’s case records. In response to my enquiries the Council said it was waiting for contact from Miss X to address any errors.
• Confirmed that it had attached a note to the care records confirming a previous Social Worker’s opinion, was not factually supported.
• Met with Miss X to discuss her family’s experiences.
• Offered Miss X £400 remedy for the avoidable distress caused by its actions.
9. Although Miss X is unhappy with the outcome of this complaint we will not investigate. I am satisfied the Council has made an appropriate apology and taken steps to address the faults identified. The financial remedy offered is appropriate for the avoidable distress caused to Miss X and is in line with our Guidance on Remedies. Further investigation by us will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Council has already upheld the matter and offered an appropriate remedy. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman