Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about delay responding to her request for a social care assessment for her daughter because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains about the Council’s failure to respond to her requests for a social care needs assessment for her daughter, G, she made in emails sent in June and July 2025.
2. Ms M described the stress of dealing with the Council, including her requests for a social care needs assessment, which she said made her ill, left her unable to work, led to the breakdown of her marriage and caused G’s younger sibling distress. She said delay by the Council posed a ‘safeguarding risk’.

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
• 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms M sent me the three emails she sent to the Council in June and July 2025 in which she asked, among other things, for a social care assessment for G.
7. The Council began the assessment in August 2025.
8. In a detailed complaint response to Ms M’s complaint, the Council acknowledged that it had not responded to Ms M’s requests for an assessment in the three emails she sent, and it was only through Ms M’s persistence that the assessment began in August 2025.
9. The Council explained the circumstances which led to Ms M’s request for a social care assessment being overlooked and explained the steps the Council recognised it needed to take to avoid similar mistakes in the future. The Council apologised. The Council also offered Ms M a symbolic payment of £300 for the distress caused.
10. Ms M is unhappy with the Council’s response. She believes there are serious systemic problems the Council has failed to identify. She wants the Ombudsman to investigate.
11. I do not agree. I am satisfied the Council has acknowledged its mistakes, offered an appropriate apology, and recognised what it needs to do to avoid similar problems in the future. I do not consider there is anything we could add to the Council’s response. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable.
12. Ms M is unhappy with the social care assessment and her dealings with the Council in connection with the production of an education, health and care (EHC) plan for her daughter. We will not consider these matters because the Council has not had an opportunity to respond.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman