The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children services team’s delay and refusal to amend a safety plan. It is unlikely we can achieve the outcome she seeks.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, says the Council delayed in reassessing a safety plan and wrongly refused to change it. She says there has been poor communication.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I considered Miss X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.
My assessment
Miss X says the family has ‘a safety plan’ for contact with family members and the children. The safety plan was originally approved by the Council’s children services team to prevent child safeguarding issues arising. In essence it sets out contact arrangements.
Miss X says she asked the Council in November 2020 to reassess the safety plan as she felt it was not working with COVID-19 restrictions in place. The Council reassessed the plan and said in December 2021 that it believed it should not be changed. Miss X says the reassessment was poor. She says the Council did not speak to the relevant people. She says it unreasonably delayed and there was poor communication throughout.
The Council does not have parental responsibility for any of the children. It cannot impose or restrict contact, only the people with parental responsibility or the courts can. The ‘safety plan’ is one Miss X and her family have consented to. Our investigation could not set out contact arrangements. It is unlikely we could not achieve the outcome Miss X seeks of a changed ‘safety plan’.
Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
Any delay in the reassessment has not caused any significant injustice as the ‘safety plan’ was not amended. Miss X’s complaint of poor communication does not on its own cause a significant enough injustice to her to justify our investigation.
Final decision
We should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome Miss X seeks and there is insignificant injustice caused by the faults she alleges.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman