Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a Child in Need plan. The Council has already investigated X’s complaint under the three-stage Children Act 1989 complaint procedure, and it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it conducted that investigation or considered the findings.

The complaint

1. X complained about how the Council managed and communicated with them about their child’s (Y), Child in Need (CIN) plan. They said it was at fault because it removed some provision that was included in Y’s Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan. X also said it delayed putting transition support in place after they made a request to change provider.
2. They were also unhappy the Council failed to agree a request for reasonable adjustment relating to CIN planning and meetings.
3. X said this impacted on Y’s wellbeing and caused unnecessary stress to their family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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))
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. 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.
9. 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.
10. I have considered the documents from X’s complaint, and I note that:
• each part of the complaint was considered and addressed by the Council;
• the investigator, at stage two made references to case records and relevant guidance;
• parts of the complaint were upheld, and therefore require no additional scrutiny;
• on the points of the complaint which were not upheld, the findings of the stage two investigator do not appear obviously unreasonable, given the evidence summarised in the report, and;
• the stage three panel made adjustments to the findings, demonstrating it provided appropriate oversight.
11. I have, however, considered whether the Council’s proposed remedies properly recognise X’s injustice, including distress and disruption, caused by the Council’s fault. It offered X a symbolic remedy of £500 and that is appropriate.
12. Given there is no obvious flaw in how the Council conducted the investigation, or considered the findings, I will not investigate X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman