Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s failure to provide healthcare, failure to make reasonable adjustments or the failure to provide child protection meetings. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in any continuing lack of healthcare provision, we have previously considered a complaint about reasonable adjustments and the Council has agreed to respond to Mr X’s complaint about the child protection meetings.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has denied his daughter healthcare following a court decision, has failed to provide his wife with reasonable adjustments in her dealings with it, has failed to undertake child protection conferences and children in need meetings and failed to record the notes from these meetings. He says his daughter has been denied healthcare and the stress has caused him and his wife ill health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
3. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the comments made by Mr X in reply to my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

Healthcare withdrawal

6. Mr X complains the Council stopped a medical provider from completing an autism assessment. He says this led to support from the provider being withdrawn.
7. A court order was made between Mr X and the Council in 2021. One of the terms was for the Council to contact the medical provider and ask it to reinstate the cancelled assessment. I understand Mr X is still waiting for the medical provider to arrange a new assessment.
8. If Mr X does not feel the Council has carried out any terms in the agreed order it was for him to bring this to the attention of the court. As the actions being complained about are part of a court order the complaint relates to court proceedings, and the restrictions in paragraph two apply. We are unable to consider any matter relating to court proceedings and this complaint is therefore out of jurisdiction.
9. I understand that Mr X does not feel he should have to take the Council to court to get the healthcare service. However, Mr X is saying the Council have breached a court order and this is something for the courts to decide.

Reasonable adjustments

10. Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide staff who are trained to deal with autism or provide an advocate for his wife.
11. Last year Mr X raised a complaint about the Council not making reasonable adjustments, failure to provide advocacy and failing to understand autism. We concluded these complaints were substantially linked to a previous complaint Mr X had about child protection matters. We concluded that we could not investigate these concerns as any potential remedy lies via the courts. We shall not revisit that decision.
12. Mr X says the Council has failed to make reasonable adjustments in its more recent dealings with his wife. Those dealings related to the Council’s involvement with the couple’s children, which was the subject of court action. Any relevant points, including whether the Council was making suitable reasonable adjustments, were, or could reasonably have been, raised in court. It is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to get involved in those matters.
13. Commenting on my draft decision, Mr X said the Council has not provided autism experts, which it must do. Whether the Council followed the law or not does not alter the position that we will not revisit a complaint we have already considered about this matter and events since our previous decision were subject to the more recent court action.

Child protection meetings

14. Mr X complains the Council has not provided him with notes from the child protection conference as they were not recorded. Further he complains the Council failed to hold the children in need meetings it should have.
15. We would usually expect the Council to deal with such a complaint through its complaints procedure before we would consider it. The Council has not dealt with this complaint. At my recommendation, the Council has now agreed to respond to the complaint. I consider this a reasonable remedy to this complaint.
16. Commenting on my draft decision, Mr X said the Council had prevented him following the complaint procedure and the Ombudsman should act to ensure his complaints are heard. We have achieved this by having the Council agree to consider this point of complaint now.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no fault in relation to the withdrawal of healthcare, we have already considered the reasonable adjustment complaints raised and the Council has agreed to respond to Mr X’s complaint about the child protection meetings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman