Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide adequate support to her and Mr Y, meaning their needs were not met and causing distress. We do not find the Council at fault for how it considered Mrs X’s complaint as part of the statutory complaints procedure. We will therefore not consider the substantive matter.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the service her and her son, Mr Y received from the Council since he was discharged from hospital. Mrs X says the overall support and service has been poor, the Council failed to carry out an assessment to establish Mr Y’s needs and aspirations, or a carer’s assessment for her, and communication has been poor throughout.

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. 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)
3. 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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs 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

The Children Act

7. The Children Act 1989, section 17, requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. All disabled children are regarded as ‘children in need’ and entitled to an assessment under section 17.
8. The expectation of ‘Working Together’ is that an assessment which identifies significant needs will generally lead to the provision of services, but it is not the case that there is a duty to meet every assessed need. Whether a service is required is dependent on the nature and extent of the need assessed and the consequences of not providing a service. Councils may use eligibility criteria and take into account their available resources when providing services under section 17 of the Children Act.

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

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. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
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. 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.
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. In certain circumstances, the Ombudsman will take an early referral before a complaint completes the procedure. This includes where a stage two investigation has delivered a robust report, a complete adjudication, all significant complaints have been upheld, and the Council has agreed to meet the recommendations.

The Ombudsman’s approach to investigating statutory children’s complaints

16. 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.
17. 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

18. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
19. Mr Y has been known to the Council’s children’s services for several years and had a Child in Need plan in place. As well as a history of self-harm, Mr Y has several health diagnoses.
20. Following an inpatient hospital stay the Council agreed to reassess Mr Y’s needs and consider what support he needed and continued to maintain his Child in Need plan.
21. Mrs X complained to the Council. Mrs X said she felt Mr Y should be allocated to the Children with Disabilities team and she had concerns about the length of time it had taken to complete the single assessment. Mrs X said she was concerned the single assessment had not been shared with other professionals and said she felt a standalone carers assessment should have been completed for her. Mrs X also said she was unhappy with the communication from the Council and felt she had not been treated with respect, kindness or compassion.
22. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one. The Council acknowledged Mrs X had asked for Mr Y to be transferred to the Children with Disabilities team but said he did not need to change teams and did not meet the criteria for Children with Disabilities. The Council acknowledged there were delays in completing the single assessment and sharing this with Mrs X but explained this was unavoidable and the assessment would be shared with other professionals once Mrs X gave permission to do so. The Council explained as part of the single assessment, it had considered Mrs X’s support needs as a carer and the challenges she was facing but no specific needs or support were identified as required. The Council apologised for any communication Mrs X was unhappy with but explained it felt it had communicated in the right way and said it believed it had acted appropriately in its dealings with Mrs X.
23. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint as she said it had not answered all her concerns and some of its information was inaccurate.
24. The Council appointed an IO and an IP to conduct and oversee the investigation.
25. In May 2024, the IO issued their report, setting out their findings, conclusions and recommendations. The IO investigated 18 strands of complaint under four different headings. The IO upheld all parts of Mrs X’s complaint and made recommendations. The IP also issued a report, agreeing with the findings of the IO.
26. The Council issued its adjudicating response, supporting the findings and conclusions of the IO and IP. Based on the recommendations it received, the Council agreed to:
• Provide Mrs X with a written apology;
• Consider a new provision within its Disabled Children Team to prevent recurrence of the issues Mrs X had experienced;
• Complete a stand-alone assessment taking a holistic view of Mr Y’s needs, the family context and the impact of caring for Mr Y on Mrs X;
• Consider the IO and IP reports and findings with learnings considered at the highest level and an invitation for Mrs X to meet with a senior figure in the Council to discuss her experiences; and
• Pay Mrs X £400 to recognise the time and trouble she had been put to during the complaints process.
27. Mrs X remained unhappy and asked the Council to consider her complaint at a stage three panel. Mrs X said the findings and recommendations did not fully recognise the circumstances of her complaint and did not adequately remedy this.
28. The Council acknowledged Mrs X’s request to take her complaint to a stage three panel hearing but explained the IO and IP had upheld all aspects of her complaint and it had agreed with these decisions and recommendations. On this basis, it explained a stage three panel hearing would not achieve the resolution Mrs X wanted, and said she could seek an early referral to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.

Analysis

29. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaint process. This being the case, the Ombudsman’s role is not to re-investigate the complaint. Instead, I have looked at whether there were any significant flaws in the complaint process and whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
30. The Council followed the relevant statutory deadlines in its handling of Mrs X’s complaint at stage one and stage two. It also promptly informed her of why it did not feel it would be appropriate to progress her complaint to a stage three panel review. I do not find it at fault here.
31. The Council appointed an IO and IP to independently investigate Mrs X’s stage two complaint. Both produced detailed reports about the investigation. Both the IO and the IP upheld all elements of Mrs X’s complaint and made recommendations that the Council accepted.
32. I recognise Mrs X disagrees with the outcome of the investigation and the recommendations, but the available evidence shows the stage two investigation was completed in accordance with the relevant statutory guidance. The reports make clear the IO and IP understood the complaint, considered the relevant evidence and drew independent conclusions with reference to this.
33. For these reasons, I have not identified any concerns with the way the investigation was conducted, and I cannot find fault. It follows that I cannot criticise the judgments reached during the stage two investigation.
34. The Council addressed the IO and IP’s findings in its adjudication letter, accepted their recommendations and set out the actions it would take. I do not find the Council at fault for how it responded to the IO and IP’s investigation.
35. While the Council did not progress Mrs X’s complaint through the procedure to a stage three panel hearing, it clearly explained why it felt this complaint was appropriate for an early referral to the Ombudsman. I do not find the Council at fault here.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find no fault with the process the Council followed to consider Mrs X’s statutory children’s complaint I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman