Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing Mr X a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to address safeguarding concerns he raised about his child’s college. He also complains about how the Council dealt with his complaint about this matter.

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.

(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 X raised safeguarding concerns about his child’s college with the Council. In September he raised a complaint with the Council about its failure to respond to his safeguarding concerns.
7. The Council drafted a response but did not send it to Mr X until recently. The Council considered its safeguarding duties and those of the college. It contacted the college and reviewed its safeguarding procedures and training. The Council made some recommendations to the college around its procedures and encouraged Mr X to continue to raise any concerns with the college via its safeguarding processes.
8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his safeguarding concerns because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council’s response shows that it considered relevant information before reaching its conclusions and fully explained to Mr X its reasoning. In the absence of fault, we cannot question the Council’s decisions.
9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays by the Council responding to his initial concerns or about poor communication by the Council. Any injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.
10. I will also not investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint. 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

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault that has caused Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman