Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to escalate and investigate Ms X’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure causing her frustration. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, make a payment and investigate her complaint under the statutory complaints procedure starting at stage two. The Council also agreed to make a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs Z complained on behalf of Ms X who said the Council failed to safeguard her child, Y, by placing Y in care with a neighbour, Ms B instead of her as a close family member after Ms X became ill. She said the Council ignored her concerns about the placement, relied on inaccurate information, and failed to investigate the complaint at stage two.
2. Ms X said these failings caused distress, uncertainty, and affected her recovery. She wants the Council to acknowledge its failings, make a payment and improve safeguarding procedures for vulnerable adults and children.

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)
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Z on behalf of Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs Z 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

Relevant law and guidance

Child in Need

8. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 defines a child in need as a child who “is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for them of services by a local authority. A child who is disabled is classed as a child in need.
9. Section 17(1) of the Children Act imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within its area who are in need by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs. Services include:
• Advice, guidance and counselling
• Respite care
• Financial assistance
• Assistance for holidays
10. If the family is not happy with the council’s action under s17, and complains to the council, the law says the council should respond to that complaint using the Children Act statutory complaints procedure.

The statutory complaints procedure

11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The statutory guidance gives examples of complaints which must be considered under the statutory children’s complaints process, including:
• An unwelcome or disputed decision
• Delay in decision making or provision of services
• Delivery or non-delivery of services including complaints procedures.
• Attitude of behaviour of staff
• Application of eligibility and assessment criteria
• The impact on a child or young person of the application of a local authority policy; and
• Assessment, care management and review.

What happened

14. In August 2025, Mrs Z complained that when her sister, Ms X, became ill, the Council failed to properly assess the family's circumstances and instead placed Ms X's child, Y, with an unsuitable non-relative, Ms B. Mrs Z said the Council accepted Ms B’s statement that no suitable family members were available without considering her as a potential carer. She raised safeguarding concerns that Ms B had left Y in the care of a minor on several occasions while working but the Council dismissed these safeguarding concerns as unfounded, accepting Ms B's account without carrying out an investigation into the matter.
15. The Council provided a response under its corporate complaints procedure in September 2025 not upholding the complaint. Mrs Z escalated the complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. The Council refused to investigate the complaint at stage two stating its stage one response provided a proportionate consideration of her concerns and directed her to us if she remained unhappy.
16. At the end of September 2025 Mrs Z complained to us on behalf of Ms X.
17. The same day, Ms X made her own complaint to the Council about its handling of Y’s case while she was in hospital and the poor communication from the Council officers involved.
18. In mid-October, the Council issued its stage one complaint response to Ms X. It said it had taken appropriate steps to safeguard Y, including seeking legal advice and assessing carers.
19. A week later, Ms X told the Council she remained dissatisfied with its response. She said, contrary to the Council’s account, it had not contacted anyone in her wider support network and had relied on incorrect information when making decisions.
20. In November, the Council responded to Ms X and advised her that she could escalate her complaint to stage two by outlining the points she remained unhappy about.
21. There is no evidence Ms X took any further steps to pursue her complaint by contacting the Council again.

My findings

22. Mrs Z complained on behalf of Ms X, that the Council placed Y, a child in need, in care with Ms B, instead of investigating Ms X’s family circumstances and identifying Mrs Z, as a relative and possible carer for Y.
23. The Council did not investigate Mrs Z’s complaint at stage two which led to Mrs Z complaining to us on behalf of Ms X.
24. Ms X later raised the same concerns directly with the Council. When she expressed dissatisfaction with its stage one response, the Council failed to treat this as a request to escalate her complaint to stage two and instead delayed advising her of that option for a further four weeks. This was fault and caused Ms X frustration.
25. The law is clear that when a family is not happy with a council’s actions under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 then it should reply using the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Not doing so, when Ms X said she was unhappy with the Council’s response at stage one, was fault and meant the Council did not handle Ms X’s complaint correctly.

Back to top

Actions

26. Within one month of the final decision, the Council agreed to:
1. apologise to Ms X and pay her £100 to acknowledge the frustration caused to her by failing to:
1. escalate her complaint to stage two when she expressed her dissatisfaction with the Council’s stage one complaint response; and
2. investigate her complaint under the statutory children’s 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 the apology I have recommended.

2. investigate Ms X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure starting at stage two.
3. remind complaint handling staff, through training or a briefing, to progress complaints under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 using the statutory children's complaints procedure and to escalate complaints to stage two where a complainant remains dissatisfied with the stage one response.
2. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I have found fault and the Council agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman