6 February 2009

Mr S Hardwicke Carruthers

Via email ([FOI #4765 email])

Our ref: CS/08/0114/HJP

(Please quote our reference when contacting us)

If telephoning contact Hilary Pook on 020 7217 4734

or if using email send to: [email address]

Dear Mr Hardwicke Carruthers

Requests for information

Further to my letter of 15 January, I am now responding to the request you made in your email of 12 December 2008. I apologise for the delay in responding.

You asked for a breakdown of the outcome of complaints determined against all social services authorities for each year since 2000, by outcome and dividing them into complaints about adults or children.

Mr Karney asked you to supply your reasons for wanting this data. You responded by referring to a petition to the Prime Minister in relation to child abuse issues seeking reform of the Local Government Ombudsman, and to some social services departments being “defective”. You said a response to your question would “enable it to be identified whether there is a gap in the system or if the LGO has … contributed to what should at least in some cases have been avoidable tragedies.” You also suggest that a response to the question would “enable it to be identified if there is a difference in approach by the different Ombudsman offices.”

The role of the LGO is to investigate complaints from individuals who consider that they have been caused an injustice as a result of maladministration (and, since April 2008, failures in service provision) by an authority. The person caused an injustice by a failure in child protection procedures is the child concerned. Young children in such cases are not well placed to be able to complain to the LGO and tend not to have anyone who can act on their behalf. The LGOs have taken special measures to make it as easy as possible for young people to complain to them and will generally exercise their discretion to investigate complaints made by young people that are more than 12 months old. Notwithstanding these measures, complaints about failures in child protection procedures detrimental to the child are rare.

/…

The LGO is not an inspector and unlike, for example, the Commission for Social Care Inspection or Ofsted, has no remit to examine the general standards or operating arrangements of a department or service unless relevant to, and to the extent that it is relevant to, an individual complaint. The functions of the LGO and the inspectorates are different and can be complementary. When an LGO investigation gives rise to concerns about general standards or operating arrangements the LGO will make appropriate recommendations for both review and oversight by the elected members of the authority concerned.

In light of these points, I cannot agree that providing the statistics you have requested will enable the analysis you are suggesting. Neither will any differences in numbers of or outcomes to complaints for different authorities necessarily tell you anything about differences of approach by different Ombudsman offices. I therefore have determined that your request does not have any `serious purpose or value' and that, together with the significant burden providing the data would impose, I consider your request vexatious under section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act.

That concludes my response. If you feel I have not dealt properly with your request, you have the right to appeal and, should you wish to do so, I can supply a copy our internal complaints procedure. You also have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner to determine whether your request has been properly dealt with. You should note however that the Commissioner will not consider any complaint where you have not first exhausted our internal complaints process or where there has been undue delay in contacting him. You will be able to obtain further details of the Information Commissioner's role from the website on www.ico.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook

Hilary Pook

Communications and Records Manager

LGO 01 (03/08)