Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council has delivered social care for Y. The Council was at fault for not commencing a stage two statutory investigation under the Children Act 1989, causing distress, uncertainty and frustration to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to recognise the uncertainty, conduct a stage two investigation, and act to prevent recurrence.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council has delivered social care for her son, Y. Mrs X says the Council incorrectly placed Y under the care of its safeguarding team and its social worker was not experienced in dealing with his specific needs. Mrs X also says the communication and service she has received from the Council has been poor.

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. 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. 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

5. I have only considered how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s complaints. I have not investigated the substantive matter concerning the actions of the Council’s children’s services.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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 statutory complaints procedure

8. The Children Act 1989 (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.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
10. 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.
11. 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 IP and the adjudication response.
12. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days, but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days (13 weeks) where required.
13. 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.
14. The statutory guidance says that, if a complaint has entered stage one, the council is obliged to ensure the complaint proceeds to stages two and three if the complainant requests this.

What happened

15. Mrs X wrote to the Council in October 2024, raising six points of complaint under three headings.
16. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one in October 2024, not upholding any of the complaint points she had raised.
17. In November 2024, Mrs X asked the Council to progress her complaint to stage two, explaining why she disagreed with the findings within its stage one response.
18. The Council acknowledged Mrs X’s request and explained it felt her complaints primarily required explanations from the social care team concerning their actions and decision-making. The Council offered to hold a meeting for Mrs X to present her questions to the service and receive a full response to each of them. Alternatively, the Council explained it could provide a response to the points Mrs X had raised in her escalation request.
19. Mrs X asked the Council to respond to her stage two complaint in full rather than attend a meeting to discuss her concerns, and the Council agreed to do this.
20. In December 2024, a service manager at the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. The service manager acknowledged Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s stage one complaint response and said they had spoken to the relevant workers and looked at the relevant records before giving their response to each of Mrs X’s complaint points. This letter did not mention an IO or an IP and did not uphold any of Mrs X’s complaint points. The letter concluded by directing Mrs X to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
21. Mrs X approached the Ombudsman in December 2024. We wrote to the Council in March 2025 suggesting it had not considered Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory complaint process for children’s social care complaints, and inviting it to complete a children’s stage two investigation.
22. The Council replied in March 2025, providing copies of its complaint responses to show it had dealt with Mrs X’s complaint through the statutory complaints process.

Analysis

23. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one, answering each of her complaint points in turn and explaining why it did not uphold them. I do not find fault with how the Council considered Mrs X’s complaint at stage one of the process.
24. Mrs X then asked the Council to review her complaint at stage two and set out why she disagreed with its stage one response. The Council offered to meet with Mrs X to discuss her concerns, but she repeated her request for it to respond to her complaints at stage two.
25. The Council provided a second response to Mrs X’s complaint in December 2024, but this did not fulfil the requirements of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. Mrs X’s concerns were not investigated by an IO and an IP, and were reviewed by a manager from the service complained about rather than someone from a different team within the Council. No independent person was involved in overseeing the complaint investigation and no adjudication was carried out, as required by the statutory procedure. This is fault.
26. 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. This independence is not available to complaints put through the corporate complaints procedure. Because of this, we expect people to complete the children’s complaints procedure before we will consider whether there were any flaws in how the Council investigated their concerns.
27. The fault here has caused Mrs X an injustice in that the Council has failed to commence a stage two investigation as set out in statutory guidance, causing avoidable uncertainty and frustration, and delaying resolution of Mrs X’s complaint. Had the Council acted without fault, a stage two adjudication could have been provided in December 2024.

Back to top

Action

28. To remedy the injustice identified above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month:
• Write to Mrs X to apologise for the injustice caused by its failure to consider her complaint in line with the statutory complaints process for children’s social care complaints. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectation ns for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a symbolic payment of £400 to acknowledge the injustice caused to Mrs X in terms of avoidable distress, uncertainty and frustration.
• Ensure the stage two investigation into all of Mrs X’s complaints has started, and confirm it will be completed within the required timeframe.
• With reference to our Guide for Practitioners: Children’s statutory complaints process, remind the Council’s complaints team of the importance of directing complaints about children’s social care through the statutory three stage process.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice by the Council’s failure to commence a stage two statutory investigation under the Children Act 1989. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice, and I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman