Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to visit a 9 year old boy at home because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, and nothing we could add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. X is 9 years old. He complains with the assistance of a professional representative. His complaint arose because of the Council’s wish to visit him at home. The Council wanted to visit X to discuss his social activities. X does not want visitors at home. He prefers to communicate via video link with his representative. Stalemate followed. X’s representative complained that the Council failed to make “reasonable adjustments” and take account of his wishes and feelings. There has been disruption to X’s council-funded social activities.
2. X’s representative complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. The Council’s response was delayed by a child protection investigation into concerns for X’s welfare.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant’s representative and the Council. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. X’s representative made detailed and specific complaints to the Council. I have carefully considered everything X’s representative said, although I have not included every detail here. We have limited resources, so I have focussed my attention on what I consider to be the core issue.
6. The core issue concerns the Council’s wish to see X in person, and X’s preference for contact only with his representative via video link. Disagreement led to disruption to X’s council-funded social activities.
7. The Council explained in its complaint response that it needed to see X in his home, and preferably on his own, because of child protection concerns.
8. The Council explained how it balanced X’s communication preferences and the “reasonable adjustments” he requested against its child protection duties.
9. These are professional judgements the Council must make. The law does not allow the Ombudsman to question professional judgements made without fault.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation by us. The Council has responded to X’s concerns and there is nothing we could add to the Council’s response. There is no worthwhile outcome for us.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation, and nothing we could add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman