Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children’s services. We have upheld the complaint as the Council agreed to consider Ms X’s complaint through the statutory complaints procedure.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council:

• Discriminated against her and her child as it wrongly decided that her child was not eligible for support from the Children with Disabilities Team.
• Delayed in responding to her complaints.

2. Ms X considers that as a result she has not received sufficient support which has caused significant distress to her and her child.

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 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complained to the Council about its decision that her child was not eligible for support from its Children with Disabilities Team and about comments made by an officer.
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. 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 to look into the complaint and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence. 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.
10. 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.
11. If we were to investigate it is likely we would find fault causing injustice to Ms X. This is because Ms X’s complaint falls within the scope of the statutory complaints procedure but the Council considered the complaint through its corporate complaints procedure. As a result, Ms X missed the opportunity for an independent and thorough investigation of her complaint through the statutory complaints procedure.
12. We invited the Council to now consider completing a statutory stage two investigation and to notify Ms X of her rights under the statutory complaints procedure.

Back to top

Agreed action

13. The Council has agreed to complete a statutory stage two investigation of Ms X’s complaint within 65 days of this final decision and to notify Ms X of her rights under the statutory complaints procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman