Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to and progress an insurance claim he made following the outcome of a statutory children’s social care complaint. Since he complained to us, the Council has referred the claim for consideration by its insurers and external lawyers. We cannot decide whether the claim should be accepted, determine the value of any losses, or direct the Council or its insurers to make a payment. As the claim is now being progressed, we cannot see any worthwhile additional outcome that continuing our investigation could achieve. We have therefore discontinued it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to respond properly and promptly after he submitted a claim to its insurers for legal costs and other losses which he says resulted from failings identified through the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure. He says he received no substantive response despite chasing the Council, causing him further frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble. Mr X wants the Council to ensure the claim is considered without further delay.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

Decision to discontinue

6. Mr X previously complained about the actions of the Council’s Children’s Services. His complaint was considered through the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure.
7. A Stage 3 Review Panel considered the complaint in November 2024. The Panel recommended the Council consider a financial remedy in line with our Guidance on remedies. The Council accepted the Panel’s findings, apologised to Mr X and offered him £200 for avoidable distress and £150 for his time and trouble in making the complaint.
8. During the Stage 3 process, Mr X was also told that if he wanted to pursue compensation for matters such as his legal costs, he could make a separate claim through the Council’s insurers. This was not a recommendation that the Council or its insurers should pay compensation.
9. Mr X subsequently contacted the Council about making an insurance claim. He says he did not receive a response despite chasing the matter and therefore complained to us.
10. Since Mr X complained to us, the position has changed. Mr X has confirmed the Council has now contacted him and referred his claim for consideration by external lawyers working with its insurers. He is providing further information about the losses and impact he says he and his family experienced.
11. The Council told us it had not considered Mr X’s concerns about the handling of the insurance claim through its complaints procedure. Ordinarily, we would expect a Council to have an opportunity to consider and respond to a complaint before we investigate it. However, I do not consider it proportionate to require Mr X to make a further complaint to the Council in the circumstances of this case.
12. The main issue Mr X brought to us was that his insurance claim was not being progressed. The Council has now taken steps to progress the claim and it is being considered.
13. There may have been some delay or poor communication before the Council took this action. However, further investigation into this would be unlikely to achieve a worthwhile additional outcome. The main practical outcome he wanted was for the Council to progress his insurance claim, and this is now happening.
14. It is not our role to manage or oversee the insurance process. We also cannot decide whether the Council or its insurers are legally liable for the losses Mr X is claiming. We cannot determine the value of those losses or direct the Council or its insurers to make a payment.
15. Mr X disagreed with my draft decision. He said the Council only progressed the claim after pressure from his MP and the Ombudsman, and he was concerned the claim may stall again if I ended my investigation. I have considered those comments and they do not change my view. The claim is currently being progressed, and it would not be our role to remain involved to monitor what happens next.
16. For these reasons, I cannot see any worthwhile additional outcome that further investigation by us could achieve. I have therefore discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Decision

17. I have discontinued my investigation. The Council has now taken steps to progress Mr X’s insurance claim and it is being considered. As the claim is now being progressed, we cannot see any worthwhile additional outcome that continuing our investigation could achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman