Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by issuing an apology and paying Mr X a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed responding to his complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. He says this caused him significant frustration, distress and anxiety.
2. Mr X also complains the Council failed to carry out a recommendation from the stage 3 review panel to correct inaccurate information it held about him. He says this damaged his reputation and his relationship with his children.
3. Mr X wants the Council to acknowledge its failures, correct any inaccurate records, apologise and provide a financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), 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 information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the statutory children’s complaints procedure in May 2024. The Council did not issue its stage 2 response until July 2025, around 14 months later.
9. This was significantly outside the statutory timescale of 65 working days. The Council said this was due to service demand and limited resources. While this reflects pressures on the service, it does not remove the Council’s duty to complete the statutory complaints procedure within the required timescales. The delay was fault and likely caused Mr X avoidable frustration and distress.
10. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by the delay by issuing an apology and providing a financial remedy to Mr X in recognition of the distress caused. To its credit the Council agreed to resolve the complaint.
11. Mr X also complained the Council had not carried out a recommendation from the stage 3 review panel to correct inaccurate information it held about him. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it had reviewed the accuracy of the information it held and identified corrective action where required. Given the Council has now considered the issue and taken steps to address any inaccuracies it identified, further investigation of this matter is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. To remedy the injustice caused, within four weeks of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise in writing to Mr X for the fault and injustice caused. 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 we have recommended.
• Make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mr X for the avoidable distress caused by the significant delay in the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld this complaint, and the Council has agreed to resolve it early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman