Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr X’s complaint. We could not add anything meaningful to the Council’s own complaint investigation, which has already upheld the complaint in full. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is compensation for a loss of earnings and for other issues relating to his health. This is a matter for the courts, not the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council withdrew children’s social care services from his two children without notice (citing financial reasons). He says this was despite the fact that they are autistic, have serious mental health issues, are out of school permanently and were receiving no support from any other agencies.
2. Mr X also complains that, following a change in care provider, the Council provided completely inadequate care to his children.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The statutory guidance, ‘Getting the best from complaints’, sets out a three-stage procedure for complaints about certain aspects of children’s social care. I refer to this as ‘the statutory procedure’.
7. Parents can use this procedure to complain about their children’s social care support.
8. If a complaint has already been through the statutory procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation.
9. We are not an appeal stage and do not simply add another independent investigation to the previous one as a matter of course. We will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed in a way which disadvantaged the complainant.
10. I have considered the documents from Mr X’s complaint, and I note that all parts of the complaint have already been considered and upheld in full by the Council following the independent investigation. It has already agreed to reintroduce care for Mr X’s children and has set out the ways in which it intends to improve its service.
11. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said. If I were to reinvestigate the complaint, it is also unlikely that this would lead to a substantially different outcome for Mr X. So I will not conduct such an investigation.
12. This may not be a significant issue for Mr X, because he has not actually asked us to investigate the facts of his complaint. What he wants is compensation. He says he suffered distress from missed health appointments, which endangered his life. He also says his wife suffered a loss of earnings from having to change her career to look after the children on Mondays and Fridays (which the Council had previously been doing).
13. Our guidance on remedies says we provide remedies for injustice, not compensation. When we have investigated a complaint and found that someone has suffered an injustice, we try to put them back in the position they would have been had the council not been at fault.
14. Our focus is on restoring services that have been denied, and on taking practical steps to put things right. Where that isn’t possible, we will try to think of creative remedies that acknowledge the impact of faults.
15. These remedies do sometimes take the form of payments. However, these are often modest amounts whose values are intended to be largely symbolic, rather than purely financial. It is not our role to award compensation, and we direct people to the courts where that is their primary goal.
16. In this case, Mr X wants compensation from the Council. While a small, symbolic financial remedy could technically be possible under our guidance, that is not the point of our service.
17. Mr X does not need an investigation into his complaint, and the Council has already addressed issues with its service delivery (both in direct reference to
    his children's cases and more widely). We have neither the resources nor the expertise to consider a loss of earnings claim, or to assess the financial value which should be placed on someone’s life being allegedly at risk. These are matters for the courts.
18. For this reason, I cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants, and I will take no further action on his complaint.

Back to top

Decision

19. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman