Summary: Mr X complained about the recommendations following the statutory complaint procedure and said the Council has not completed the recommendations. Mr X said this distressed him. There was no fault in how the Council completed the statutory complaint’s procedure, so we have no grounds to question or reinvestigate its findings. The Council made a merits based decision on the content of the letter to Y and completed the actions from the statutory complaints procedure within a reasonable timescale. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the recommendations following the statutory complaint procedure and said the Council has not completed the recommendations. Mr X said this distressed him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 s34H(1), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

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. Because of this, 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.

What happened

16. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
17. Mr X adopted his child, Y. In August 2024, he complained about systemic failures, professional misconduct and inadequate support during the adoption process.
18. The Council issued its stage one response in October 2024. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
19. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two four days later.
20. The IO completed the investigation in March 2025. The IP agreed with the IO report. The report upheld two of Mr X’s eight complaints, partly upheld another but did not uphold five.
21. Mr X approached the Ombudsman in March 2025. He said the Council had not completed the stage two investigation within the statutory timescale.
22. The Ombudsman considered Mr X’s complaint and asked the Council to complete the stage two investigation. The Ombudsman also asked the Council to make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the delays in the process. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s decision and confirmed it had completed the investigation.
23. The Council issued its adjudication letter at the end of March 2025. The Council accepted the IO report. The Council offered to apologise, pay Mr X £500 and improve services.
24. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage three. The Council completed the stage three panel hearing in May 2025. The panel upheld one part of Mr X’s complaint, partially upheld four parts and did not uphold the other three parts. The panel decided to make seven recommendations including service improvements, an apology and a financial remedy of £1,750. The final recommendation stated:
• “So that Y can also understand the Local Authority know some things went wrong and are sorry. The Council should liaise with Y’s current social worker to find out what Y’s current interests are and discuss with Y if there is something they’d like or something they’d like to do, such as a game or day out and agree to fund this as appropriate.”
25. The Council sent Mr X its adjudication letter in June 2025. The Council agreed with the panel recommendations. It also increased the financial payment to £3,600 to recognise the impact on the family.
26. Mr X contacted the Council two days later. He stated Y would enjoy a day out at a theme park and set out the cost for this, totalling £400. Mr X stated he “would also like to suggest including a short message to Y in the apology letter”.
27. The Council then said it would like to write a separate apology letter to Y.
28. The Council sent the apology letter and paid £4,000 to Mr X at the start of July 2025.
29. The Council sent an apology letter to Y later in July 2025. Mr X challenged the Council to say the letter was not an accurate reflection of the situation. The Council said the letter was designed to be age appropriate for a child to read. The Council confirmed it would add the relevant documents from the complaint process to Y's care records for Y to access in the future if they wished.
30. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X would like the Council to rewrite the letter to Y.

My findings

31. The statutory children’s complaint procedure is a statutory procedure the Council has to follow. As set out in paragraph 13, where a council has investigated a complaint under the statutory children’s complaint process, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed.
32. The IO conducted a thorough and detailed investigation into the matters in the statement of complaint which they agree with Mr X. The IP oversaw the investigation. The IO spoke to the Council officers involved in this matter. The IO offered to meet with Mr X, but he felt this was not needed. The IO also considered relevant documentation relating to Mr X’s complaint.
33. The IP addressed each of Mr X’s complaints and provided a decision on whether to uphold the complaint. Each decision was supported by the evidence available.
34. The stage three review considered the adequacy of the stage two investigation and reached findings on each element of Mr X’s complaint. It considered Mr X’s comments and representation.
35. The Ombudsman considered an earlier complaint about how the Council was dealing with his complaint and found fault with delays in the process. This investigation considered the actions of the Council after the previous Ombudsman decision.
36. Government has set out a three-stage process. Our role is to look at the administrative actions of the process. We cannot substitute our views for those of council officers where proper processes have been followed, even if the complainant disagrees with the conclusions reached. There was no fault in how the Council completed the statutory complaint procedure. I recognise this situation has been distressing for Mr X, but the decisions were taken without fault. I do not find fault with the Council for how it carried out the statutory complaints process, and will therefore not reinvestigate the complaint.
37. I have reviewed the Council’s recommendations and remedies considering the fault found.
38. The Council agreed to the stage three panel’s seven recommendations. This included recommendations for service improvement. The Council increased the payment offered to acknowledge the impact on Mr X and his family. Mr X’s complaint focusses on recommendation seven which states:
• “So that Y can also understand the Local Authority know some things went wrong and are sorry. The Council should liaise with Y’s current social worker to find out what Y’s current interests are and discuss with Y if there is something they’d like or something they’d like to do, such as a game or day out and agree to fund this as appropriate.”
39. Mr X stated Y would not understand the day out at a theme park was because the Council was sorry. I note the Council agreed it would add the complaint reports and outcomes to Y’s file. Y would be able to access this, should they wish, to fully understand how and where the Council got things wrong. This would also confirm the theme park trip was a direct consequence of Mr X’s complaint.
40. The Council decided it would write a letter to Y after Mr X suggested including a message to Y in Mr X’s apology letter. The Council wrote the letter for Y to read when he turns 12. Mr X says Y will not properly understand what the Council is sorry for and would not relate the day at a theme park as the Council saying sorry. This is a speculative injustice. We cannot say what Y may or may not understand when they are 12 and what questions they may ask. Mr X says the letter to Y does not detail the issues, take responsibility or apologise. The Council considered Mr X’s views about the letter and explained why, in its professional view, it considered the letter to be age appropriate for Y. This is a merits decision the Council is entitled to make. The Council was not at fault.
41. The recommendation is poorly worded, open to interpretation and may have raised expectations. However, the recommendation was to show the Council knew something went wrong and was sorry, find out what Y would like to do and agree to fund this. Mr X told the Council Y would like a day out at a theme park and said this would cost £400. The Council agreed to this and made the payment within 15 working days. The Council completed the action within a reasonable timescale. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman