Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s contact with the Council and its complaints handling. The Council has already partially investigated using the children’s statutory complaint procedures, and further investigation by us would not lead to a significantly different outcome. Additionally, there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s complaint handling, to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council had failed to act reasonably when supporting her daughter. She said this included:
1. Failing to provide the agreed level of care and support;
2. failing to implement key elements of the Deafblind Assessment;
3. not providing required equipment or necessary adaptations, and;
4. failing to coordinate the services her daughter needed.
2. Mrs X said this disadvantaged her.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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

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. Mrs X complained about the outcome of her statutory children’s complaint as well as how Stage 3 review panel was conducted. Mrs X now wants an investigation into her substantive complaint.
7. If a complaint has already been through the three-stage Children Act complaints procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation and we are unlikely to re-investigate unless the earlier investigation was flawed. I acknowledge that Mrs X’s complaint did not complete stage three, but the Council had carried out an independent investigation.
8. I have read the documents from Mrs X’s complaint, including the independent stage two reports along with the Council’s stage two adjudication. The Council has upheld some of her complaints and explained why it will not uphold the other complaints.
9. Given there are no obvious flaws in the stage two investigation and the Council’s responses, and the investigation report has considered Mrs X’s comments and referred to case records, I am satisfied the Council has adequately investigated Mrs X’s complaint.
10. I note on the matters which were not upheld, the findings of the stage two investigator do not appear obviously unreasonable, given the evidence summarised in the report. The Council has provided an apology where appropriate.
11. Given my considerations here, we will not investigate Mrs X’s substantive complaint, because we would not achieve a significantly different outcome for Mrs X.
12. Mrs X said the stage three review panel process was procedurally flawed. During the hearing, the Chair explained there were no procedural issues, but Mrs X continued to object to how the panel would consider the evidence. The panel chair sought to reassure Mrs X it could carry on, but the available evidence shows Mrs X disagreed. Consequently, the panel chair decided to terminate the hearing.
13. We will not investigate the Chair’s decision to end the review panel process and conclude no finding. The Chair has discretion to do so, and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault in how that decision was made.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Additionally, there is not enough evidence of fault, in the Council’s complaint handling, to justify an investigation

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman