Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a symbolic financial remedy resulting from the Council’s consideration of a statutory children’s complaint. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, so we cannot achieve the outcome that Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the amount offered to him as a symbolic financial remedy following a children’s statutory stage two complaint investigation was inadequate.
2. Mr X said the amount offered to him did not reflect the findings from the stage two investigation or his experience.
3. Mr X wants the Council to improve the symbolic financial remedy it has offered to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X previously complained to us about the Council’s handling of his complaint. This led to the Council agreeing to consider his complaint under the children’s statutory complaints process.
8. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
9. All of Mr X’s points of complaint were upheld by the stage two investigation, and its findings were accepted by the Council’s adjudicator.
10. As an outcome, the Council offered Mr X a symbolic financial remedy of £800 to reflect avoidable distress and frustration, and the time and trouble he had experienced in pursuing his complaint.
11. Mr X did not request escalation of his complaint to stage three. He did however ask the Council to reconsider the amount offered to him as a symbolic financial remedy and provided his reasons for doing so. The Council considered Mr X’s request and increased its symbolic financial remedy offer to £1400. Mr X has not accepted this offer.
12. I have considered if the Council’s proposed remedy properly recognised the avoidable distress Mr X may have experienced. Mr X wants the Council to increase the payment it has offered, in recognition of – as he sees it – his significant distress. But the Council has already offered Mr X £1400.
13. I accept Mr X is unhappy with this. But the offer appears in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance and appears to recognise not only that he suffered distress, but that this distress was severe or prolonged.
14. I am satisfied that further investigation is not warranted as the Council has already adequately investigated Mr X’s complaint and offered a suitable symbolic financial remedy for the injustice he experienced. We will therefore not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, so we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman