Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Miss X’s complaint about how the Council refused services to her disabled son. An independent investigation has already found no fault in what the Council did. It is unlikely that further investigation of the same issue would lead to a different outcome for Miss X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss X, complains about the Council’s refusal to provide certain services to her disabled son (whom I refer to as Y).

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 we must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the council, or if further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information from Miss X and the Council. Both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

The Council’s investigation into Miss X’s complaint

4. Miss X complained to the Council in 2023. The Council responded under the three-stage Children Act complaints procedure. The second stage involved an independent investigation.
5. The independent investigator did not uphold Miss X’s complaints, and concluded:
• The notes held on Y’s file say his disability is not severe, profound or life threatening – which it would need to be to meet the Council’s disabled children threshold criteria.
• The Council based its decision on its own threshold for the provision of services for children with disabilities, and not any threshold used by the NHS.
• Y still has access to other social care services.
6. The review panel (at stage 3 of the complaints procedure) noted that the independent investigator had not properly set out the evidence she had reviewed in making her decision. She responded with a list of the evidence.

Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman

7. Miss X was dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint to the Council. She said that, among other things, she wanted compensation for the Council’s ‘unjustified’ withdrawal of services from Y.

My findings

8. If a complaint has already been through the three-stage Children Act complaints procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation.
9. We are not an appeal stage and do not simply add another independent investigation to the previous one as a matter of course. We will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed in a way which disadvantaged the complainant.
10. I have considered the documents from Miss X’s complaint, and I note that:
• Each part of the complaint was considered and addressed by the Council.
• The independent investigation report refers to relevant Council guidance, staff interviews and case records. This evidence appears to support the investigator’s findings.
• Although it is not clear from the investigator’s records whether she reviewed the Council’s assessment of Y’s needs, the outcome of the assessment – and how the Council applied its intervention threshold to that outcome – were considered throughout the investigation report.
• The disagreement between Miss X and the Council concerns the application of social work judgment, which – unless it has been applied in such a way that it is obviously irrational, even to a layperson – I cannot question. The irrationality threshold is very high.
• Having seen the Council’s assessment of Y’s needs, I have seen nothing which would obviously point to irrationality in the Council’s decision-making. This, therefore, is likely a matter of professional judgment which I would not be able to question if I investigated further.
11. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said. If I were to reinvestigate the complaint, it is also unlikely that this would lead to a substantially different outcome for Miss X.
12. This means it would not be a proportionate use of public money to continue with our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman