Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s poor handling of his child’s transition from Children’s Services to Adult Social Care. Mr Y also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. The Council has now upheld all aspects of Mr Y’s complaint and there is no further fault for us to find. Our investigation has therefore focussed on the Council’s remedy. We find the remedy already provided to be proportionate and ask the Council to send evidence that the agreed outcomes have been completed.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained to the Council about his child’s transition from Children’s Services to Adult Social Care. At the time of the matters complained about, Mr Y’s child was a looked after child and the Council had statutory duties to manage their transition into adulthood. Mr Y complained the Council did not properly manage nor fulfil those duties.
2. The Council processed the complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Mr Y complains that the investigation was subject to significant delay, resulting in further injustice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Complaints under the statutory procedure

8. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
10. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
11. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
12. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days, but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
13. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
14. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Therefore, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
15. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

Background of key events relevant to the complaint

16. Mr Y has a child with special educational needs (SEN) who had an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. I will refer to the young person as D.
17. In 2022, D’s parents approached the Council to request additional support. Although D was entitled to overnight respite, their access to this support was restricted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr Y considered that this reduction in respite contributed to an increase in D’s challenging behaviours. Given the physical nature of some of those behaviours, the family believed that D’s needs would be best met through a residential placement.
18. The Council identified a placement in another city, but the family felt this was too far away from home and therefore declined it. Shortly after, the Council noted the need for an “urgent” Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment and a referral for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DOLS).
19. In December 2022 the Council identified another placement. Although in a neighbouring authority, this placement was much closer to the family home than the one previously offered. The family accepted the placement and signed a Section 20 agreement to consent to D being accommodated by the Council.
20. From January 2023, D’s EHC plan transferred to the neighbouring authority where they resided. Around this time, the Council also completed a Pathway Plan and made a referral to the team which oversees transitions into Adult Social Care (ASC) because D was due to turn 18 later in the year.
21. The Council completed its final looked after child (LAC) review in August 2023 and noted a preference for D to move back into the Council’s area. The Council also noted the need to complete the DOLS assessment, as well as a Care Act assessment to establish what support D needed as an adult. The review also noted that D was “thriving” in their placement and “making good progress”.
22. The Council made an urgent referral for D to receive advocacy support.
23. Shortly after, D turned 18.

The Council’s findings

24. Mr Y submitted his first complaint to the Council in November 2023. The Council issued its first stage complaint response 55 working days later and on 9 January 2024. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr Y asked the Council to escalate his complaint to the second stage of the statutory complaints process.
25. On 22 April 2024 Mr Y confirmed his statement of complaint, which I will summarise below:
• Complaint 1: delays in applying for a DOLS.
• Complaint 2: delays in securing an advocate for D.
• Complaint 3: gaps in the provision of education and/or training for D.
• Complaint 4: delays in planning D’s transition to ASC.
• Complaint 5: failure to complete key actions in a timely manner.
• Complaint 6: suggestion to use money from Personal Independence Payments (PIP) was inappropriate.
• Complaint 7: the stage one complaint response did not accurately reflect or respond to all points of the complaint.
26. The IO issued their report on 24 August 2024. This upheld every point of complaint. Following the IO issuing their report, the Council issued its adjudication. The adjudication changed the following findings:
• Complaint 1 from upheld to not upheld
• Complaint 3 from upheld to not upheld
• Complaint 4 from upheld to partially upheld
• Complaint 6 from upheld to not upheld
27. Mr Y asked for his complaint to progress to stage three. The stage three panel met on 11 March 2025. It decided to refer two of the complaints to ASC for consideration under the corporate complaints process. For the remaining complaints, the panel upheld all except for Complaint 3 which it partially upheld.
28. The Council wrote to Mr Y on 19 May 2025 to provide its final complaint response following the stage three panel. It confirmed its decision to uphold all points of Mr Y’s complaint, except for Complaint 3. The Council confirmed the outcomes agreed following the complaint investigation.
1. To ensure the outstanding complaints about ASC are investigated and clearly responded to by the service.
2. For an independent review of D’s case to help inform the Council’s learning around the transition between Children’s and Adult services.
3. To develop a ‘joint working’ protocol for complaints involving more than one service area, e.g. Children’s and Adult services.
4. To provide a formal written apology for the upheld complaints.
5. To provide a total financial remedy of £2000 in recognition of both the time and trouble caused by faults in the complaint handling and the distress caused by faults in the substantive matter.
6. To share an anonymised version of the complaint findings with appropriate staff and the ‘SEND Improvement Board’.
7. To arrange for the relevant Head of Service to review D’s case and ensure their Pathway Plan is appropriately managed.

Our analysis

29. I have reviewed all the complaint documents to decide whether the Ombudsman should reinvestigate Mr Y’s complaint. As explained in paragraphs 14 and 15 of this statement, we do not reinvestigate complaints where there was no fault in the complaints process or where a further investigation would not add anything new.
30. Although there was significant fault in how the Council handled Mr Y’s complaint, I am satisfied the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy. I am also satisfied that this fault did not affect or influence the final complaint findings. The Council has acknowledged the failure to provide a coordinated response in a complaint involving more than one service area and has addressed this by making a symbolic financial payment and introducing service improvements.
31. During the statutory complaints investigation, some of the findings changed. However, the outcome was that all complaints were upheld except one. I have looked closely at the complaint that was only partially upheld. In my view, a reinvestigation would not change this outcome. This is because the complaint was only partly upheld due to the jurisdictional constraints. From January 2023, the alleged gaps in D’s provision became the responsibility of a neighbouring authority. The investigation could not consider the actions of that authority and could not, therefore, reach a finding on the whole of Complaint 3. For these reasons, I agree with the decision to partially uphold this complaint.
32. I have also considered the outcomes agreed by the Council and the progress of those actions. In response to our enquiries, the Council has confirmed that all actions have been completed, apart from two. These are:
• Outcome 2 – the Council has appointed an ‘Independent Investigating Officer’ to complete the review and has held two meetings since. The review is not yet complete but due by April 2026.
• Outcome 3 – the Council confirms the joint working protocol is drafted but not yet adopted. The Council anticipates this action will be completed by April 2026.
33. I note that the two outstanding actions relate to service improvements that are significant in scale. The reasons they have not yet been completed are not due to avoidable drift or delay. However, we will ask the Council to provide evidence once the actions are complete.
34. In terms of the financial remedy offered, I am satisfied this is proportionate and in accordance with our published Remedies Guidance relating to symbolic payments for time, trouble and distress. For this reason, I do not recommend any additional symbolic payments.

Back to top

Action

35. The Council has already identified and implemented appropriate service improvements as a result of this complaint, and we do not propose any further recommendations. However, two service improvements remain outstanding. To ensure the injustice caused by the fault is fully addressed, the Council has agreed to provide evidence that these two actions have been completed within eight weeks of our final decision.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to complete all agreed actions to remedy injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman