The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to make changes to its Early Help service. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the process.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s decision to make changes to its Early Help services. Mrs X says the changes will mean most of the children and youth centres in her local area will close, which will impact her and her children. Mrs X says the Council did not properly consider the views of residents when making its decision.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In January 2021, the Council considered proposed changes to its Early Help service and decided to launch consultation exercise before reaching a final decision on the proposals.
The consultation exercise started on 8 March and ended on 7 May and asked members of the public to give their views on three different options. The Council methods of publicising the consultation included a page on the Council’s website, posts on social media and posters in schools.
Nearly 2000 responses to its consultation were received, with 71% supporting a proposal to retain the existing number of centres, and 76% either strongly opposed or opposed a reduction in the number of centres. Nearly 800 people also made comments on the proposals.
The Council produced a report which recommended a revised plan. It addressed concerns raised by the public during the consultation and made changes to the proposals based on this feedback.
In July 2021, the Council’s scrutiny committee met to consider the proposals, the following week Cabinet Members met to vote on whether to approve the changes. The changes that were approved included the reduction of centres from 43 to 12 and for increased the support and focused response to vulnerable children.
The Ombudsman cannot question council’s right to implement changes to how it manages its services or question the merits of their decisions about what changes it will make. We can, however, investigate complaints about administrative fault in the process.
I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.
I am satisfied that the Council acted appropriately by carrying out a consultation exercise, and I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council carried out the consultation.
I have also seen no evidence of fault in how the outcome of the consultation was presented to the Cabinet Members. The report shows the Council weighed up opposing views and the implications of its decision and provided a clear rationale for its conclusion.
Whilst I appreciate Mrs X feels very strongly about the Council’s decision and about the way she has been personally affected by the changes, I have not see any evidence that there was administrative fault in the process.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman