e have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering his complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.
The complaint
Mr X complains that the Council has delayed considering his complaint at stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended) Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
If we were to investigate this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault. This is because there has been a delay in the Council considering the complaint and issuing Mr X with a stage two response.
We therefore asked the Council to complete its investigation within one month, advising Mr X how he can escalate his complaint further. We also asked the Council to apologise to Mr X for the delay and to make a payment to him of £350 to remedy the distress this caused. To its credit, the Council has agreed.
Final decision
We have upheld this complaint. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing an appropriate remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman