Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council engaged with Ms X during the child in need process. This is because the Council’s actions are sufficient to remedy any injustice and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not arrange child in need meetings properly, did not communicate with her or keep her updated and gave her confusing information about its role. She says the Council have accepted these issues, but is unhappy with the remedy offered. Ms X says the Council have failed to recognise the full impact these issues had on her. She would like the Council to provide a remedy which she feels properly acknowledges this.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council investigated Ms X’s complaints about the child in need process and found fault. It found delays in arranging child protection meetings, a lack of communication and updates and poor management of the child protection plan. There had also been a lack of clarity over the social worker’s role and this, along with the other issues, led Ms X to feel she had to chase the Council.
6. The stage 2 investigation made several service recommendations to prevent these issues reoccurring. The Council also offered Ms X £300 as a recognition of the injustice these issues had caused. Ms X agreed with the outcome of the investigation but felt £300 was not enough. The Council then offered Ms X £500, which she also did not accept. She asked the Council for her complaint to be considered by a stage 3 panel.
7. The panel recommended Ms X receive £300. It said this was because £300 was sufficient to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X. It explained the Council had only offered £500 to try and avoid the cost and stress associated with the stage 3 process.
8. The Council has apologised to Ms X and made recommendations to prevent similar problems happening again. It has also offered Ms X £300, which is in line with our guidance on remedies. The delays and issues Ms X experienced undoubtedly caused her avoidable distress, however this was limited to a period of a few months, which is not a prolonged period. Although communication was poor and Ms X had to chase, progress was made. In addition, some of this distress was, in part, due to the nature of the child in need process which is inherently stressful. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint as the Council’s actions are sufficient to remedy any injustice to Ms X and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council’s actions are sufficient to remedy any injustice and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman