Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about the remedy offered for a Children Services’ complaint. We are unlikely to achieve significantly more.

The complaint

1. X says the Council has failed to adequately remedy their Children Services’ complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by X which includes the Council’s replies.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. X complained to the Council in October 2022 about the Council’s actions and support whilst they were a looked after child from May 2020 until November 2022. The Council replied within its Children Act statutory complaints procedure.
6. 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.
7. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The Council’s stage three review panel considered the case in December 2024. It recommended to the Council that it redo the stage two investigation report and adjudications stage. It did so. The Council issued the second stage two report and adjudication letter in May 2025. It up held nearly all the complaint.
13. X says they are satisfied with the stage two report. 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. There are no reasons to do so in this case.
14. X is dissatisfied with the recommended remedies. The Council offered:
• £500 for complaint delays
• £500 for distress
• £500 for drift and delay
• Apologies
• Practical services’ improvements.
15. X says they do not trust the Council to ensure the practical service improvements are completed. Any practical service improvements we could obtain would rely on the Council’s assurance it has carried them out. We cannot obtain the remedy on this X seeks.
16. X says the distress payment is not reflective of the extent of the distress they suffered. Any payment we would recommend would be symbolic. It would not be for any mental health effects. It would also only be for the effects on X directly caused by the Council’s faults, not by the general situation they were in. The Council’s proposal is in line with our remedies’ guidance and our investigation is unlikely to achieve significantly more.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate X’s complaint because we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman