Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint about the actions of Children’s Services. This is because our intervention would not add to the investigation which has already been carried out, or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council’s response to his complaints about Children’s Services was flawed.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or 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 provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council placed two children with Mr X and his wife in 2017 with a view to adoption. An adoption order has not been applied for and the children remain looked after by the Council.
6. In 2022 Mr X made a formal complaint about what he saw as the Council’s failings throughout the period. The complaint was addressed through the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services.
7. At Stage 2 of the procedure Mr X agreed a statement of complaint with the Investigating Officer. The statement encompasses three areas of complaint, each of which includes several elements. It is this statement which was relied on at Stages 2 and 3 of the procedure.
8. Mr X complains that both Stages 2 and 3 were flawed. Specifically, he says that, after the Investigating Officer had to be replaced, he did not meet the new Investigating Officer and was denied meaningful input before the Stage 2 report was issued.
9. The complaint was upheld in part at Stage 2. Mr X was unhappy with the findings and used his right to escalate the matter to the final stage. He says the Stage 2 report was produced with bias against him. He believes his complaints should have been upheld in full and the Investigating Officer should not have included comments from other parties which he regards as libellous and offensive.
10. At Stage 3, the Review Panel examined those elements of the complaint which had not been upheld in full. It made findings and added recommendations to those proposed at Stage 2. Mr X believes the Review Panel failed to properly consider the evidence.
11. The Council has fully accepted the findings and recommendations made under the statutory complaint procedure. The statutory procedure is the appropriate route by which to complain about such matters and it is not for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate complaints which have been properly investigated.
12. The question therefore is whether there is evidence of significant fault in the statutory procedure which has affected the outcome. Having considered the complaints and responses at all stages, I can identify no such evidence.
13. At Stage 2, the replacement Investigating Officer was entitled to rely on the work done by their predecessor and to produce the report without further input from Mr X. The report is comprehensive and the outcome defensible. There is no indication of the bias Mr X alleges. In any case, Stage 3 provided Mr X with the route by which to challenge the findings.
14. Whether statements contained in the Stage 2 report were libellous is not a matter on which the Ombudsman can comment. Only a court can decide whether a statement amounts to libel. If Mr X regards them as inaccurate, it is open to him to pursue his Right to Rectification. There is no role for us.
15. At Stage 3, Mr X had the opportunity to make verbal and written representations. The fact that the Review Panel added to the Stage 2 findings and recommendations demonstrates that it did not, as Mr X, alleges fail to take account of his evidence. Rather, it demonstrates a proper level of scrutiny.
16. To conclude, the evidence shows that the statutory children’s services complaint procedure was properly implemented, and its findings were reasonable and defensible. That being the case, it is not for the Ombudsman to criticise the merits of the findings or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Our intervention would not add to the investigation which has already been carried out, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because our intervention would not add to the investigation which has already been carried out, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman