Summary: The Council delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint and failed to complete the remedies recommended in its stage three statutory complaints response. The Council accepted it is at fault and agreed to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council investigated her complaint using the statutory complaints process. She said the Council failed to complete an adequate assessment of her child’s (C) social care needs and wrongly closed the case when the family was facing possible eviction. She also said the Council failed to review short breaks provision and failed to provide C with an education. This caused the family and distress and caused C to miss out on education which he is entitled to.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
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 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have only investigated how the Council completed the statutory complaint process, to ensure it did so correctly. I have not investigated Ms X’s substantive complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant legislation

The three-stage statutory complaints process

8. 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 independent person 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 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.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

14. 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.
15. 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

16. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.

The complaint

17. Ms X Complained to the Council in the middle of May 2024. She said the Council failed to complete a satisfactory assessment of her child’s (C) social care needs and wrongly closed the case when the family was facing possible eviction. She also said the Council failed to review C’s short breaks provision and failed to provide C with an education.
18. The Council issued a stage one complaint response later in May 2024. It did not uphold the complaint in relation to social care and short breaks. It did uphold the complaint about education and said it will work with Ms X and the school to get C back into full-time education.
19. In the middle of August 2024, Ms X asked the Council for a stage two investigation. An independent investigating officer and independent person considered the complaint. The council issued a stage two response in early November 2024. In its response, the Council offered C an assessment in which the social worker would consider an increase in short break hours and support in the community. It also offered Ms X a carer needs assessment. It apologised for the distress caused.
20. Ms X asked for a stage three investigation in the middle of January 2025.
21. The Council held a stage three review panel hearing in early July 2025 and sent its response shortly after. It upheld Ms X’s complaint that it failed to complete a satisfactory assessment and upheld this part of her complaint. The Council agreed C had missed significant schooling due to its failure to implement their EHC Plan and agreed to remedy this in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The Council apologised for the distress caused. It also set out a series of service improvements such as an improved case management system to track completion of assessments, and a reminder to social workers about providing assistance with housing matters
22. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. Ms X told me the Council had not contacted her about the remedy it offered her in the complaint response for C’s missed education; she had not received any financial compensation. Ms X also said there was delay in the complaints process.
23. In response to my enquiries, the Council said there was around a hundred-day delay in progressing Ms X’s complaint at stage three. It explained this was because there was a significant increase in the number of complaints received and a lack of suitably qualified independent investigators to investigate them. In response to my enquiries, the Council recognised the time and trouble this caused Ms X and proposed a financial remedy of £125.
24. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it will offer to pay Ms X £7,200 for C’s missed education. The Council said it will contact Ms X directly with this offer and arrange payment.

Analysis

25. As set out above, where a complaint has been through the statutory children’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate the substantive parts of the complaint. I have limited my investigation to whether there are any flaws in the Council’s investigation and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.
26. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted it delayed in the complaints process. This was fault. It recognised this caused avoidable time and trouble to Ms X and offered to make a financial remedy of £125. This is a satisfactory remedy and is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. I do not need to make any further recommendations for remedies.
27. The Council accepted in its complaint response that C had missed significant schooling due to its failure to implement their EHC Plan and offered to remedy this in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. When Ms X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council had not contacted Ms X to make an offer of a remedy. It had not completed the recommendations in its own complaint response. This was fault. In response to my enquiries, the Council offered to pay Ms X £7,200 for the missed education. This is a satisfactory remedy and is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.

Summary of fault causing injustice

28. The Council was at fault for delay in the statutory complaints process and delay in offering and complying with its suggested remedy for C’s missed education. The Council agreed to remedy this.

Back to top

Action

29. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council will complete the remedies as proposed in response to my enquiries. These are:
• Apologise and pay Ms X £125 in recognition of the time and trouble caused in the delay in the complaints process.
• Pay Ms X £7,200 in recognition of C’s missed education.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman