Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complains that the Council failed to recognise her as her son Mr Y's advocate, failed to properly ascertain and consider Mr Y's wishes and feelings, failed to make reasonable adjustments for his autism, and refused to investigate her complaint under the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council failed to recognise her role as advocate for Mr Y despite information she provided which she says showed he wanted her to act on his behalf. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly ascertain and give due weight to Mr Y's wishes and feelings. She says the Council also failed to make reasonable adjustments for Mr Y's autism and communication needs. She also says the Council wrongly refused to investigate her complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. Mr Y is a looked after child subject to a Care Order. The Council therefore has responsibility for making decisions about his care and welfare and for ascertaining and considering his wishes and feelings when doing so.
7. We considered Mrs X's concerns that the Council failed to properly ascertain Mr Y's wishes and feelings. The information available shows the Council had concerns about whether views presented on Mr Y's behalf reflected his independently expressed wishes. The records show the Council therefore sought Mr Y's views directly and through an independent advocate before reaching decisions about his care and about who could act on his behalf.
8. The Council considered information obtained directly from Mr Y, information from an independent advocate and information from professionals involved in his care. After considering that information, it decided it would not accept Mrs X as Mr Y's representative for matters said to be raised on his behalf. The Council recorded and explained the reasons for its decision.
9. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide whether the Council reached the correct decision. Our role is to consider whether it followed a proper decision-making process. I am satisfied the Council considered relevant information, sought Mr Y's views and explained the reasons for its decision. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached that decision to justify an investigation.
10. We further considered Mrs X's concerns about reasonable adjustments. The records show the Council took steps to obtain Mr Y's views in ways it considered appropriate to his communication needs, including adapting communication methods and involving an independent advocate. We have not seen enough evidence of administrative fault in this regard.
11. We also considered the Council's handling of Mrs X's complaint. The Council decided the matters raised were primarily challenges to professional decisions about advocacy and representation rather than matters it would investigate under the statutory children's complaints procedure. The Council explained its reasons for reaching that view. We have not seen enough evidence to suggest the Council reached this decision without considering the relevant information or explaining its reasons. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the Council's complaint handling.

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify further investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman