Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr and Mrs X’s complaints. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Also, we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mr and Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain:
1. The Council failed to handle their complaints properly and threatened to stop their Direct Payments (DP) if they did not engage with the Child in Need (CIN) process.
2. The Council included inaccurate and incomplete information in their Child in Need (CIN) records.
3. The Council unfairly issued an Unacceptable Actions by Customers (UAC) warning after they sought a response to their complaints.
4. The Council delayed responding to their Subject Access Request (SAR) and failed to disclose key information relevant to their complaint.
5. The Council failed to adequately follow up safeguarding concerns about their child, including concerns about the use of funding and failure to secure provision specified in their child's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 the complainants and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Part a. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
6. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.
7. There is no evidence the Council's consideration of the complaint through the statutory procedure was flawed. The Council properly considered the recommendations and agreed to share relevant policies, review the direct payment agreement and meet with Mr and Mrs X to clarify matters. While there was a delay in holding the review panel, the reasons were proportionate and the delay did not cause Mr and Mrs X any significant injustice.
8. Part b. Mr and Mrs X complained the Council included inaccurate information in their CIN records. The Council considered these concerns and, where appropriate, agreed to amend its records. Further investigation is unlikely to add to the Council's response or achieve a different outcome for Mr and Mrs X.
9. Part c. The Council said it asked Mr and Mrs X to clarify their complaint. It said they sent a high volume of correspondence, including duplicated and overlapping complaints. The Council said it issued a UAC warning because of the volume of correspondence and concerns about its staff well-being. The Council explained its reasons for applying its UAC policy and was entitled to exercise its professional judgement. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to justify invesitigating.
10. Part d. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council delayed responding to their SAR and failed to provide key information. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is better placed to consider complaints about SAR delays and access to personal information. It is reasonable for Mr and Mrs X to complain to the ICO.
11. Part e. We will not investigate this part of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because it concerns matters the Ombudsman has previously considered.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Also, we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mr and Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman