Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son’s care. The Council was at fault for delaying in completing the statutory complaint procedure and failing to provide a suitable remedy for the faults identified through the statutory complaint procedure. This caused Miss X distress and frustration. The Council will apologise, make a payment and send us evidence of completed service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council dealt with her and her son, Y. She said the Council:
1. poorly communicated with her;
2. repeatedly changed Y’s social worker;
3. failed to provide minutes to meetings;
4. failed to complete the statutory complaints procedure within required timeframes; and
5. failed to implement all the recommendations from the statutory complaints procedure.
2. Miss X says this has caused her and her son distress and the lack of support resulted in a family breakdown.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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(i), as amended)
4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
5. 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 have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated Miss X’s substantive complaint about how the Council’s actions. I have explained why in paragraph 33.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss 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

Legislation and guidance

Statutory complaints procedures

9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Stage two should be completed within 25 days or allows up to 65 days if needed.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. However, we may 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.

Section 17 duties

17. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
18. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

Duty to provide services

19. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. A council should provide minutes of child in need meetings held. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 

Respite

20. Respite care, also known as short breaks, is a type of temporary care that allows parents or carers to take a break from caring for a child. 

What happened?

21. Miss X made a stage one complaint to the Council early December 2023. She complained that the Council had failed to provide child in need meeting minutes and a consistent social worker. She also complained about poor communication and the Council failing to provide adequate care, respite and referrals to other services over a period of several years.
22. Miss X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage one investigation and met with the Council to discuss her dissatisfaction. The Council agreed a statement of complaint with Miss X mid-May 2024 and agreed to investigate this at stage two of the statutory procedure.
23. Miss X asked for an update mid-July, and asked if she could now refer the matter to the Ombudsman as the Council had not responded within expected timeframes.
24. The Council apologised for the delay. It said the IO and IP were working hard to provide Miss X with a response.
25. Following the Council completing a stage two investigation, the Adjudicating Officer (AO) wrote to Miss X mid-August. They were satisfied with the independent investigation and noted the IO had addressed and responded to all complaint points. At this stage, the Council upheld all but one of these complaint points, which it partially upheld. It said the Council had failed to:

• provide all minutes from meetings, and on one occasion wrongly provided minutes relating to another child;
• provide consistent social workers for the family, saying there had been several changes in social workers in the past few years, which had caused issues with case planning;
• provide an appropriate type and level of care for seven years;
• adequately communicate with Miss X. This included failing to tell Miss X about changes to respite care budgets which caused Miss X and Y a period of crisis;
• provide the required amount of short break or respite services;
• act appropriately on referrals meaning that opportunities to help the family were missed, this included referrals to mental health services and domestic abuse services for Y; and
• provide suitable accommodation and therapy for Y which it attributed to national shortages of such provisions. The Council acknowledged that this caused a decline in Y’s mental health and led to Miss X living in fear of violence.

26. The Council made some recommendations that included an apology for Miss X and service improvements. It also said it was taking urgent action to find Y a therapeutic placement to live in.
27. Miss X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation and so asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage three in mid-September.
28. The stage three panel meeting was held on 16 October and upheld all of her complaint points, including the complaint that was only partially upheld at stage two.
29. The Council wrote to Miss X on 22 November. It apologised for the complaint points it had upheld and made six recommendations/actions, which included:

• Service improvements related to meeting minutes, to ensure they are comprehensive, clear and that a child’s voice is captured directly or through an advocate.
• It had reviewed its processes to ensure that it provides all contact details to families and reminded staff of the importance of responding to messages promptly.
• It was completing a review of any referrals to the service to determine whether they should have triggered a strategy meeting or safeguarding investigation.
• It would hold a meeting between Y’s social worker and Miss X to discuss Y moving to a different social work team that could provide more stable support.
• It would introduce an information leaflet to address the need for clearer communication with young people and families about what happens when a child goes into care.
• It would work with Miss X to deliver an apology to Y in a way that considered his needs and at an appropriate time.

30. The Council also apologised to Miss X for its failings.
31. In May 2025, the Council updated me on the recommendations from stage three. It said:

• It had implemented a new tracking process to ensure meeting minutes were distributed timely, which included weekly performance meetings, but there had been some system errors which had resulted in a delay of Y’s minutes being distributed on one occasion.
• It had tried to include Y in reviews, which he declined.
• Y had now moved to a more suitable social work team, but this move had been delayed unavoidably because of care proceedings.
• It had provided Miss X with all necessary contact details and the details of the team manager if the social worker was uncontactable.
• It was in the process of developing two leaflets to explain to young people what happens when they come into care and another for parents/carers. It noted these would be drafted for agreement for publishing in June 2025.
• It had introduced a procedure that sets out how initial referrals to the department should be managed and timeframes for action.
• It had discussed making an apology to Y with Miss X, but it was untimely and so this will be considered again in the future when Y was more settled.

Analysis

32. If a complaint has already been through the second stage of the statutory complaint procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation. The Investigation upheld or partially upheld all of Miss X’s complaint. The purpose of the stage three panel is to consider the adequacy of the stage two investigation and to seek any further information it requires to reach a finding on all points of complaint.
33. The stage three panel fully upheld all of Miss X’s complaints. There is no evidence to suggest there were flaws in the statutory process and so its findings can be relied on. In addition, as the panel upheld all of Miss X’s complaints there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation of the substantive points.
34. I have, however, considered the timeframe in which the Council completed the statutory complaint process. I note that the Council took 63 working days to complete stage two, although this is over the recommended 25 working days, this was still within the 65 working days time limit. I note that it took the Council 26 working days between the stage three panel meeting and issuing its response. This is six working days over the recommended timeframe, which is fault. I will recommend the Council apologise for this because this caused Miss X avoidable frustration.
35. I have also considered whether the Council’s remedies properly recognise the injustice it has caused.
36. The Council has apologised and implemented service improvements without delay, which I welcome.
37. But, I note Y is a vulnerable child and the Council had duties under legislation to provide appropriate services and to keep him and Miss X safe. The Council already accepted that it failed to do this, over a period of seven years. Specifically, by failing to provide referrals, services and respite which it acknowledged caused Miss X and Y periods of crisis, distress, a decline in Y’s mental health and Miss X to live in fear of violence.
38. The Council does not appear to have considered, as part of its recommendations, a financial remedy for the injustice caused by these faults. In light of this, the remedies the Council provided as part of the statutory procedure are insufficient for the injustice caused to Miss X and Y over a period of seven years.
39. Our guidance on remedies provides guidance about symbolic payments. This says, when, having already considered each of the previous remedy options, we identify there is still significant unremedied injustice arising from the faults, we can ask an organisation to make a payment to symbolise and acknowledge the distress or difficulties the person has been put through because of what it did wrong. So, I have made a further, more suitable recommendation below.
40. Our guidance also says that, if the outcome of the complaints procedure confirms there has been lost provision, the council should consider offering additional provision to make up for the loss. Due to a change in Y’s circumstances, it is now not appropriate for the Council to offer additional short break or respite services, but I will recommend the Council make a payment to recognise the frustration and distress caused to both Miss X and Y because of this and the missed provision.

Back to top

Action

41. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:

• apologise to Miss X for the frustration caused by its delay in completing stage three of the statutory complaints procedure. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology;
• make a payment of £1800 to Miss X and another payment of £1800 to Miss X on behalf of Y for the loss of respite provision and to recognise the frustration and distress caused by the loss of provision, risk of harm and uncertainty about what support they would have if the Council did the appropriate referrals; and
• provide evidence that it has published two information leaflets to provide information on the care process.

42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman