Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a Family Assessment carried out by the Council’s children’s services. This is because there is nothing that he could add to the Council’s previous investigation, and he cannot challenge the merits of properly taken decisions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr T, says that:
• His son, who has autism, has been unfairly refused access to support services which should provide short breaks;
• A family assessment carried out by the Council’s social services was inaccurate, and amendments have not rectified the issue;
• The Council has not carried out its complaints procedures properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• there is another body better placed to consider part of this complaint. Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr T and by the Council. I have also sent Mr T a draft decision for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr T has a child, B, who has a diagnosis of autism. Mr T asked the Council to assess what support services could be made available to B through its children’s services. In particular, he asked for short breaks to be made available, to support the family.
6. Following initial screening, B was referred to the Early Intervention Service, and then stepped up to the Children with Disability Team. At this point, the Council carried out a family assessment. The recommendation from the social worker completing the assessment was for B to be considered a Child in Need and that Short Breaks should be offered.
7. The overall conclusion by the authorising manager was that the Council would offer a small direct payment to cover the costs of some extra activities for B, but that it did not consider that short breaks were appropriate for him as yet. This is because it felt he would not benefit from them as he was too young to be easily separated from his parents.
8. Mr T complained about the assessment. He disagreed with the outcome, but also raised a number of points where he felt there were inaccuracies. The Council reviewed the assessment, and combined into it an addendum addressing the points raised by Mr T.
9. Mr T continued to be dissatisfied with the assessment, and request a stage two investigation into his complaint. However, the Council refused his request because it felt that there was nothing that further investigation could add to the assessment.
10. Mr T has now brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, but we will not investigate it. This is because there is nothing that we could achieve through further investigation. Mr T is dissatisfied because he says that the Council has unreasonably refused Short Breaks for B, but this is not so: it has agreed them, but says he is too young as yet. This is a professional decision by the Council’s officers, which we cannot change since has been properly made, with due consideration of all the information available.
11. In addition, the points within the assessment that Mr T continues to dispute are either differences in phrasing and interpretation rather than issues of factual inaccuracy, or disagreement with officers’ views of the family. They do not affect the outcome of the assessment.
12. Mr T has the right to request the Council to place his views and comments onto the file, and if it refuses, to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
13. Mr T also complains about the Council’s complaint handling. He says the stage one investigation was poor, and he is unhappy about the refusal to carry out a stage two investigation. We will not investigate these issues as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. Subject to any comments Mr T might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is nothing that we could add to the Council’s previous investigation and we cannot challenge the merits of decisions that have been properly taken.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman