Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to implement all of the recommendations made in response to a complaint under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. This is because the failure to do so has not caused the complainant so significant an injustice as to warrant investigation, and our intervention would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council has failed to implement all of the recommendations made in response to his complaint under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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. Mr X complained to the Council about what he regarded as its failure to act in response to the safeguarding implications of the fact that his son had gone to live with a third party. The matter was considered under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services.
6. The complaint was upheld in part at Stage 2 of the procedure, The Council accepted the findings and recommendations made by the Investigating Officer. Mr X escalated his complaint to Stage 3, the final stage.
7. At Stage 3, the review panel considered the aspects of the complaint which had not been upheld, and the Stage 2 recommendations. It concurred with the Stage 2 findings and did not uphold any further parts of the complaint, though it did make further recommendations. The evidence demonstrates that Mr X’s complaint was properly considered under the appropriate procedure. That being the case, it is not for the Ombudsman to reconsider it.
8. Mr X complains that the Council has failed to implement the Stage 2 and 3 recommendations. He wants a financial remedy for this failure. There are therefore two questions for the Ombudsman. The first is whether the recommendations have in fact been implemented. The second is whether any failure to do so warrants investigation.
9. Mr X has provided two key documents in support of his complaint. The first is a letter from the Council setting out what it has done to implement the recommendations. This shows that it has apologised for the fault on its part and met with Mr X to explain its position regarding his son’s living arrangements. It also set out its response to procedural recommendations made at Stage 2. It explained that it has not drawn up a plan for ongoing communication with Mr X. As his son‘s case is no longer open, there is no need to do so.
10. The second document addresses the recommendation that the Council provide the minutes of specified meetings. It confirms that no such minutes exist.
11. The evidence shows that the Stage 2 and 3 recommendations have not been fully implemented. However, where it has not done so, the Council has properly set out why this was the case, and its explanations are clear and proportionate. Any injustice caused to Mr X by the failure to fully implement the recommendations is not so significant as to justify investigation by the Ombudsman. Neither is there any prospect that investigation would lead to a different outcome. Our intervention is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because because the failure to do so has not caused him so significant an injustice as to warrant investigation, and our intervention would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman