Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to offer suitable support for her children with complex needs. We find the Council at fault for failing to adhere to the timeframe for completing its stage two complaint review. This caused Ms X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to offer suitable support for her children with complex needs. Specifically, Ms X complains the Council:
• Failed to act on actions required from her children’s Care and Education Treatment Review.
• Delayed in providing information about direct payments, delayed in providing direct payments and failed to backdate direct payments despite acknowledging a delay.
• Completed inaccurate assessments and delayed in making decisions.
• Failed to make reasonable adjustments.

Ms X told us the council’s failures caused her significant emotional distress, exhaustion and frustration and her children have missed out on support they were entitled to. Ms X would like the Council to admit its failings, apologise, make a symbolic payment and backdate direct payments to October 2024. Ms X would also like the Council to improve how it supports children with complex needs and improve its personalisation, accessibility and communication.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The Council has completed the statutory complaints process for the matters raised in Ms X’s complaint. For this reason, I have not re-investigated the matters raised. I have investigated whether there were any flaws in the Council’s stage two complaint investigation and stage three review.

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

Legal and administrative background

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.

What happened

15. Ms X submitted a stage one complaint to the Council in February 2025.
16. The Council provided a stage one complaint response within 20 working days. The Council partially upheld Ms X’s complaint. The Council offered apologies for the upheld areas of complaint.
17. Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two the following week.
18. The Council appointed an investigating officer and independent person to complete the stage two investigation.
19. The Council did not complete the stage two process within the 25 working day or 65 working day timeframe. The Council took 77 days to complete the stage two process. I have not seen any evidence to show the Council made Ms X aware of the delay or provided any reasoning for the delay.
20. The stage two complaint response partially upheld Ms X’s complaint. The Council accepted the investigations findings and offered an apology for the faults identified. The Council also committed to service improvements to prevent faults reoccurring.
21. The Council completed a stage three review within 30 working days of receiving Ms X’s escalation request. The Council accepted the outcome of the review and offered Ms X a symbolic remedy.

My findings

22. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s stage one response to Ms X’s complaint.
23. There was a delay of approximately 12 days in the Council completing the stage two investigation. This delay is fault which caused Ms X distress and frustration.
24. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s stage three review.

Back to top

Action

25. Within one month of the final decision the Council will apologise to Ms X for the delay in completing the stage two process. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman