Summary: Mr X disagreed with the Council’s summary of his complaint. He asked us to investigate instead. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council is willing to investigate and there is no evidence of fault in its complaint handling to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s summary of his complaint. He is unhappy the Council will not investigate everything he wants. He asked us to investigate.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. This may be the case when there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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

What happened

5. Mr X made a written complaint to the Council.
6. The Council agreed to investigate Mr X’s complaint under the Children Act 1989 complaints process. The Council met with Mr X and produced a summary of his complaint.
7. Mr X refused to agree the summary and asked us to investigate instead. He says the Council has left out important parts of his complaint.

The Ombudsman’s guidance on complaint handling

8. We have published guidance on complaint handling. The guidance is available on our website.
9. We believe it is good practice for complaint handlers to produce their own summary of a complaint. We think a complaint summary should be succinct and should include:
• a summary of what has gone wrong from the complainant’s point of view;
• the impact the complainant says this has had on them; and
• what the complainant would like the organisation to do to put things right.
10. We think the summary should be no more than two or three short paragraphs.
11. We recommend sharing the summary with the complainant at an early stage. This provides the complainant with an opportunity to raise any concerns they may have been misunderstood.
12. However, we do not recommend complaint handlers spend time pursuing their agreement if the complainant disagrees with the complaint summary. They should consider any feedback from the complainant and ensure they have established what is at the heart of the complaint. Complaint handlers should let the complainant know they will proceed on that basis.
13. Complainants will have the opportunity to raise concerns with how their complaint was interpreted and understood through later stages of a complaints process or with the Ombudsman.

What should happen next

14. The Council has followed the principles in our complaint handling guidance. It met with Mr X and produced a summary of his complaint. It considered Mr X’s concerns about the summary. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s complaint handling. We will not, therefore, intervene.
15. The Council confirmed it remains willing to investigate Mr X’s complaint.
16. If Mr X wishes to pursue his complaint, he can ask the Council to undertake the investigation it has offered. If, at the conclusion of the complaints process, Mr X remains dissatisfied, he can complain to us again.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council is willing to investigate and there is no evidence of fault in its complaint handling to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman