Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the support provided to his child by the Councils children’s services. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to increase his child, Y’s, support package. He says the current hours do not meet Y’s needs and the lack of support is affecting him and his family’s health and wellbeing. He wants the Council to increase the support provided to his child.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s child, Y has care and support needs and receives support from the Council’s children’s services. The Council reviewed Y’s support package in 2024. As part of the review, it considered information from Y’s parents, Y’s school and children’s mental health services.
7. Y’s parents told the Council that Y’s behaviour had not significantly changed but as he was getting older, they were finding it increasingly challenging to manage his behaviour and meet his needs. They requested more support from the Council.
8. The Council considered the parents views, information from the other agencies and the needs of their family. It decided Y’s care package should remain the same but recommended other actions to explore what additional support could be provided to the family. Actions included a family group conference, a review of Y’s Education, Health and Care plan, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy assessments, a review by mental health services and a review of Y’s case by the Council’s complex needs panel.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. Although I accept Mr X wants additional support hours, the Council has appropriately considered Mr X’s views and information from relevant agencies before reaching its decision that the current package is sufficient. The review sets out actions going forward for further assessments and exploration of how Y’s needs may be met using a multi-agency approach. The Council appears to have considered all relevant factors in reaching its decision and so we cannot question the decision reached. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman