Summary: There was fault in complaint handling by the Council for which it has apologised and offered an appropriate symbolic payment. The Council has agreed to complete an action plan of steps to address its delay in complaint handling. Other matters Ms X raised have been considered by the court (or could reasonably have been raised by Mrs X in court) and so we ended the investigation of them.

The complaint

1. Mrs X who is the adoptive mother of children, complained about:
1. Disclosure of her contact details to the birth parents
2. An inadequate post-adoption support plan
3. A failure to provide information about the children
4. social workers not getting to know the children, not engaging with them or answering their questions
5. A failure to respond to her request for life story work
6. Poor complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. We provide a free service and use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
6. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
7. The courts have said the LGSCO should not be ‘trespassing on the jurisdiction of the courts.’ This means we should not take action which interferes with or undermines the legal authority of the court. (R v Local Commissioner for Administration for the North and East of England ex parte Bradford MBC [1979] QB 287)
8. 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)
9. 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

What I have and have not investigated

10. I have investigated complaints (e) and (f). I have not investigated the other complaints. My reasons are in the next two paragraphs.
11. Complaint (d) concerns the professional conduct of social workers. Social Work England is better placed to consider these matters and so I have ended my investigation of it.
12. The other complaints were matters either raised and addressed in the adoption court proceedings or could reasonably have been raised. So, I ended my investigation of them because:
• Complaint (a): Mrs X’s concerns about the birth mother knowing where they lived were addressed by the court in February 2024 when it granted an order prohibiting the birth parents from contacting Mrs X or the children
• Complaint (b): The court approved the post adoption plan. If she was unhappy with the contents, Mrs X could have raised that during the proceedings and it was reasonable for her to have done so
• Complaint (c): Information about the children was available to Mrs X during the court proceedings. It was reasonable for Mrs X to have sought any additional information during the proceedings.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

15. I have taken the key facts from information provided by Mrs X and from the Council’s complaint response.
16. The children were placed with Mrs X as a prospective adopter in November 2023. The court granted an adoption order in February 2025. The birth parents appealed and did not win the appeal.
17. Mrs X complained to us in April 2025. We asked the Council if she had used its complaint procedure. She had not. So, we referred her back to the Council for a response. The Council did not respond, so Ms X contacted us again in June. We told the Council to provide a response. Despite multiple chases, the Council did not provide Mrs X with a complaint response until the end of January 2026.
18. The Council said in its response that life story work could not be started until court proceedings concluded, including an appeal by the birth parents. The Council’s view was that therapeutic life story work was not appropriate while the children were dysregulated (having difficulty controlling behaviour and emotions.) Mrs X disagreed and so the Council asked a social work assistant to complete life story work. Mrs X was unhappy, so the Council agreed to apply to the adoption support fund for a therapeutic life story worker. Mrs X refused this.
19. The Council accepted its complaint response was delayed, apologised and offered a symbolic payment of £250 to reflect the avoidable distress.

Back to top

Findings

Life story work

20. The Council has explained why it did not complete life story work when the children were not able to engage with it emotionally. It then offered to provide an officer to complete the work and then to apply for specialist funding, which Mrs X declined. We have no expertise in assessing when the best time for a child to complete therapeutic work is; our role is to investigate complaints of administrative fault. The Council has explained why it did not think the time was right, then offered to complete a referral for specialist funding. We have no grounds to criticise that approach.

Complaint handling

21. Ms X’s complaint was about adoption services and as an adopter, she was eligible to complain. So her complaint fell under the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council should have provided a response within 20 working days of receiving the referral from the LGSCO. It did not provide a response until the end of January 2026 despite multiple chases by us. The Council’s complaint handling was severely delayed which was fault causing avoidable frustration. It has apologised and offered a symbolic payment in line with our Guidance on Remedies. This is an appropriate personal remedy for the injustice. I will make a recommendation for improvements to the Council’s complaints service below.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. In another LGSCO investigation (23006330) we found fault in the Council’s handling of a statutory complaint, including delay. We made a recommendation for the Council to review the way it was dealing with statutory complaints to ensure it complies with timescales. We were satisfied the Council had completed this action. I am making a further recommendation around this because the same issue has recurred in this complaint:
23. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will devise an action plan setting out how it will comply with the timescales in the children’s statutory complaint procedure
24. Within nine months of my final decision, the Council will provide us with a report of all statutory complaints received between 1 October 2025 and 1 October 2026. The report should be anonymised and include the date the complaint was received and the dates of responses at each stage of the procedure.
25. We will require evidence of compliance with the actions in paragraphs 23 and 24.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman