Summary: Ms X complains the Council did not deal with children’s social care properly, causing avoidable distress and missed support. The Council is at fault because it did not complete a parent/carer’s assessment, did not update a Child and Family Assessment with new information and did not deal with this as part of a statutory children’s services complaint. Ms X suffered avoidable distress and missed support from November 2023. The Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complains the Council failed to properly complete a carers assessment in June 2024 because it did not include information about a cancer diagnosis and has failed to properly respond to a complaint about this.
2. Ms X says she suffered avoidable distress as a result of having to care for her son without support and has not had a response to her complaint.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms 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

Law, guidance and policies

Carer’s Assessment - Section 17 duties

9. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. A child is in need if:
• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.
10. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children)
11. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent.
12. As part of its s17 responsibilities, a Council must assess whether a parent carer within their area has needs for support and, if so, what those needs are, when it appears the parent carer may need support, and it receives a request to do so. (s97(1) Children and Families Act 2014)

Statutory Children’s complaints process

13. 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.
14. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.

What happened?

18. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
19. Ms X and her son Y arrived in the UK in 2022 after living overseas. Y’s Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP) had been ceased by a previous local authority.
20. Ms X sought a new Education Health and Care Plan Assessment, which the Council agreed to complete within 14 weeks.
21. The Council identified social care needs requiring a full Child and Family Assessment (CFA). However, the Child with Disability Team rejected the referral.
22. Ms X complained to the Council in November 2022 about Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan.
23. Despite completing the CFA in early 2023, no final version was shared with the parents, and no services were provided due to a lack of suitable provision.
24. Efforts to address Y’s needs, including discussions of direct payments and referrals, were delayed or deemed unsuitable by his parents. Proposed services were found unsafe without one-to-one support, which was unavailable.
25. Ms X complained to the Council about lack of social care provision for Y. This was dealt with as a statutory children’s services complaint.
26. In late 2023, the family engaged a solicitor to challenge the local authority's failure to meet Jacob's assessed needs and requested a new assessment.
27. In October 2023, Ms X was diagnosed with cancer and informed the Council of this.
28. The Council began a stage 2 investigation into Ms X’s statutory children’s services complaint.
29. The CFA was completed in February 2024.
30. Ms X’s solicitors sent a letter to the Council about taking the Council to Judicial Review proceedings.
31. In May 2024, the Council agreed to carry out a new carers assessment as part of a child in need review. Two online meetings were held between Ms X and the Council to complete this.
32. In June 2024, the Council sent Ms X an updated assessment. Ms X replied to the Council asking it to change this to reflect updated the family’s changed circumstances and changed needs since her cancer diagnosis.
33. In July 2024, Ms X complained to the Council that it had not updated the assessment in February from the new parent/carer’s assessment undertaken in May. The Council replied to Ms X at stage 1 of its complaints process and did not uphold her complaint.
34. In August 2024, Ms X requested her complaint be considered at stage 2 of the Council’s complaints process. The Council did not provide a stage 2 complaint response.
35. In October 2024, Ms X chased the Council for a stage 2 response to her complaint. The Council did not provide a response.
36. In November 2024, Ms X’s statutory children’s services complaint received a stage 2 investigation report.
37. In March 2025, Ms X chased the Council again for a stage 2 response to her complaint. The Council said it considered it would be more appropriate to complete a new assessment and asked to close Ms X’s complaint.
38. Ms X informed the Council that she did not want to close her complaint.
39. On 10 March, the Council internally considered how it should deal with these issues.
40. On 11 March, the statutory children’s services complaint was finalised at a stage 3 review panel.

Analysis

Carer’s assessment

41. The Council completed a parent/carer’s assessment to inform the CFA dated February 2024. Ms X did not agree with the outcome because it did not reflect her cancer diagnosis and changed circumstances.
42. The Council agreed to complete a further parent/carer assessment after this time.
43. Ms X provided a detailed update regarding her circumstances to the Council, as of July 2024 and asked it to include this in full. Ms X’s update outlined the increased needs she felt her family had as a result of her cancer diagnosis, the progression of her condition, and the consequent impact on her family.
44. I have seen an email from the Council to Ms X, contained in its own case notes, which shows the Council agreed in July 2024 to, “input the parent/carer assessment I completed within the C & F and append your views.”
45. The Council has not provided any evidence which shows this was done. The earlier February 2024 version of the CFA is the only one available.
46. The Council’s stage 1 complaint response said, “The Head of Service…concluded that the original assessment was compliant with the requirements of the Children's Act 1989 and the outcome would stand.”
47. I find the Council did not include Ms X’s July 2024 updates within the CFA. This is fault by the Council.
48. I asked the Council to provide a copy of the updated parent/carers assessment as part of my enquiries. The Council’s response directed me to the stage 2 of the statutory children’s services complaint. As I have identified in paragraph 55 below, the Council accepts it did not respond to Ms X’s complaint as part of that statutory complaint. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not complete a parent-carer assessment, as it had committed to do in May.
49. On the balance of probabilities, if the Council had properly completed a parent-carer assessment, it would have identified support needed by Ms X, due to her changed circumstances, and provided this much earlier. Ms X missed support between October 2023 to the point of her complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2025.
50. Ms X suffered considerable avoidable distress and uncertainty regarding what support she may have received.

Complaints handling

51. The Council says it has considered Ms X’s complaint as part of the statutory children’s complaint at stage 2 of that process.
52. The Council emailed Ms X in July 2024 saying, “issues raised [in her complaint] are already being investigated at stage 2 of the statutory children's complaints process.”
53. The Council’s case notes from December 2024 state, “Complaint issues incorporated in Stat stage 2 investigation.”
54. However, stage 2 of the statutory children’s services complaint was completed before this, in November 2024.
55. I have reviewed the available stage 2 and stage 3 documents from Ms X’s statutory children’s services investigation by the Council. I found that:
• The period of time covered by the statutory children's services complaint was up to February 2023, while Ms X’s complaint from July 2024 covered the later time period February 2024 onwards.
• There is no mention of Ms X’s later complaint time period in the statutory complaints documentation, nor any reference to the substantive nature of the complaint.
• On the balance of probabilities, if Ms X’s July 2024 complaint had been actually included as part of the statutory process, she would not have felt it necessary to chase the Council repeatedly in 2024 and 2025 for a stage 2 response to it.
56. Consequently, I find that the Council did not respond to Ms X’s complaint as part of the statutory children's complaint. This is fault by the Council. Ms X suffered injustice because she has not had her complaint properly responded to. Ms X’s complaint was not responded to between July 2024 and May 2025, a period of 10 months.
57. There is an email record saying the Council will include Ms X’s July 2024 update into the CFA.
58. There is no evidence that happened, as the last dated copy of the CFA is February 2024, which is fault. Ms X suffered avoidable distress, delay and uncertainty, and missed social care provision.

Action by the Council

59. The Council has accepted that Ms X has missed social care provision and offered a payment of £250 in recognition of the distress that the situation caused.

Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies

60. Our recommendation for a remedy for avoidable distress needs to reflect all the circumstances including:

• the severity of the distress;
• the length of time involved;
• the number of people affected (for example, members of the complainant’s family as well as the complainant);
• whether the complainant or other persons affected are vulnerable and affected by distress more severely than most people; and
• any relevant professional opinion about the effects on any individual.

61. Where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500.
62. We usually recommend a symbolic payment for distress caused by delay (normally up to £500 depending on the severity of injustice) in the statutory process. We use £50 per month for frustration caused by avoidable delay as a guide of how much to recommend. We may also recommend the stage three panel consider a payment for any further delay.
63. Where the council has failed to properly consider injustice to the parents/carers/young people, we may recommend a payment in line with our normal symbolic payments guidance and/or an apology.
64. The Council has not provided a rationale for its offer to make a payment for £250. I do not consider this is an appropriate remedy. I have considered the individual circumstances of this case together with the vulnerability of the complainant due to her illness, which I consider warrants a remedy above the guideline in paragraph 60 above.

Action

65. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council should take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Ms X for the fault found We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations 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.
• Pay Ms X £500 in respect of avoidable delay caused by failure to investigate Ms X’s complaint through the statutory complaints process.
• Pay Mrs X £1,000 in respect of avoidable distress and uncertainty as a result of missed social care provision.
66. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

67. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman