Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide the complainant with information about his child and has failed to invite him to Looked After Child reviews. This is because our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out, or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council has failed to provide him with information about his child and has failed to invite him to Looked After Child reviews.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. Mr X’s child is 17 years old and is a Looked After Child (LAC). Mr X complained to the Council that it had failed to provide him with information about his child to which he believes he is entitled. Specifically, he says the Council is at fault in refusing to invite him to LAC reviews and in failing to provide him with the minutes of the reviews.
6. Mr X alleges that the failure to provide him with the information and involve him in his daughter’s life has had an adverse impact on her progress. He wants the Council to invite him to LAC reviews and provide him with the minutes of the last three years’ meetings.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has said that, in excluding him from LAC reviews and declining to provide him with the minutes, it is acting in accordance with his child’s wishes. It did however partially uphold his complaint, in that it accepted that it had failed to properly explain the reasons for its position, and had failed to ensure he was contacted in good time before LAC reviews to allow him input. It apologised for the failings identified and proposed meeting with him to address the issue of future communications.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out. It has explained why it will not invite Mr X to LAC reviews or provide the minutes. That is a decision for it to make and the Ombudsman cannot intervene to substitute an alternative view. It has apologised for its previous failure to clarify the position and proposed an appropriate way forward. We would not seek to add to these findings.
9. Mr X says the Council has failed to take the action set out in settlement of the complaint. However, subsequent correspondence the Council has provided shows that it has done so by arranging a meeting with the Independent Reviewing Officer and producing a communication plan. The evidence shows that Mr X is unhappy with the conduct of the meeting, but that is not a matter which falls within the scope of this complaint.
10. If Mr X believes the Council is denying him information which he has asked for and is entitled to receive, he may bring his concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office. There is no role for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman