Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a complaint about its children’s care services. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his concerns about its children’s services. Mr X says there have been delays and the suggested resolution to his complaint has been unsatisfactory. Mr X says the Council’s actions have had a significant impact on his family.

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 council, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. However, we may look at whether there was any fault that may call the findings into question and if the council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.
6. In this case, the Council considered Mr X’s concerns at all stages of the statutory procedure and his complaint was partially upheld. Following the stage two investigation, the Council apologised to Mr X for an inappropriate email he received and said action would be taken to ensure it does not happen again. It also offered Mr X £150 to recognise the time and trouble he had been put to and the delays he encountered. As Mr X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, he requested a stage three review by an independent panel.
7. The stage three panel upheld additional parts of Mr X’s complaint and recommended the Council review the time and trouble payment offer. The Council accepted the panel’s findings and apologised. It also offered Mr X £250 for his time and trouble.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the outcome of his complaint. However, I consider a further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s response. The investigation and consideration of the complaint under the statutory procedure has been detailed and thorough and the remedy the Council has offered to Mr X is in line with what we would recommend in the circumstances.
9. Mr X has complained the Council disclosed his personal information to a third party without permission. However, Mr X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he is concerned about how the Council handles personal data as this is the appropriate body to consider complaints about these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman