Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council in respect of her child, B, delayed completing a social care assessment, which was inaccurate and contained harmful language. Mrs X said this caused her uncertainty and frustration, and meant the family missed out on support. We found the Council at fault. The Council has since carried out a new assessment, apologised to Mrs X, and offered a symbolic payment. It has also made improvements to its staff guidance around assessments and record-keeping. We consider these to be suitable remedies.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that Derbyshire County Council (the Council) delayed completing a social care assessment for her disabled child, B. She also said the assessment was inaccurate, contained harmful language, and was not shared promptly. Mrs X said this caused avoidable uncertainty and frustration, and meant the family missed out on support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. I have investigated events from Mrs X’s request to the Council for a care needs assessment for B in September 2024, until September 2025 when the statutory children’s complaints procedure concluded.
5. I have not reinvestigated the issues considered through the statutory children’s complaints procedure. I have considered whether the Council properly responded to the findings and recommendations and remedied the injustice identified.
6. I have also not investigated more recent or separate complaints Mrs X has raised with the Council, as these fall outside the scope of this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
9. 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 found

A council's duties

10. Section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989 imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs. The guidance document relating to this duty is called ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023’.
11. What should happen is:
• The council receives the referral. It assesses the child and family quickly, within one day, and decides if it needs to carry out a full assessment or take urgent action.
• The council has to have a local protocol explaining its assessment procedures. The whole assessment process should only take 45 working days. Once completed the Council must decide how to meet the assessed needs.
• The council offers the services to meet the needs to the family. The family decide whether it wants that service or seeks direct payments.
12. If the family is not happy with the council’s action under s17, and complains to the Council, then the council should reply to that complaint using the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. This is because s17 is in Part Three of the Children Act 1989.

Assessment of need

13. The expectation of ‘Working Together’ is that an assessment which identifies significant needs will generally lead to the provision of services, but it is not the case that there is a duty to meet every assessed need. Whether a service is required is dependent on the nature and extent of the need assessed and the consequences of not providing a service. Councils may use eligibility criteria and take into account their available resources when providing services under section 17 of the Children Act.
14. Assessments should take account of the needs of the whole family. While some services may be offered directly to the disabled child, services may also be offered under section 17 to parents or siblings.

Statutory complaints procedures

15. 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.
16. 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.

What happened

17. Mrs X contacted the Council in early September 2024 and asked for a social care assessment for her son, B, due to his increased needs linked to his disability. The Council accepted the referral eight days later and allocated a social worker.
18. The Council completed an assessment of B and his family’s needs in October 2024. A manager approved the assessment in mid-December 2024. The Council sent a copy of the assessment to Mrs X in January 2025, around five weeks after approval.
19. Mrs X made a Stage One complaint to the Council in January 2025. She complained about the delays and said the assessment was inaccurate, included copied information from an earlier assessment, and used language she considered inappropriate and shaming.
20. The Council responded to Mrs X’s Stage One complaint in early February 2025. She then asked for the complaint to be escalated to Stage Two.
21. The Council completed its Stage Two investigation in May 2025. It upheld most of Mrs X’s complaint, including the delay, but did not uphold concerns about the language used in the assessment.
22. Mrs X asked for a Stage Three review in June 2025 and requested an independent assessment. She also complained to the Ombudsman in July 2025 but was advised to complete the statutory complaints process.
23. The Council completed a further assessment of B’s needs in July 2025.
24. An independent panel held a Stage Three hearing in September 2025. The panel upheld all elements of the complaint, including concerns about the tone and potential impact of the language used. It recommended that the Council apologise to Mrs X and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. It also said that the Council should work with Mrs X to improve the practice guidance it provides staff about social care assessments.
25. The Council accepted the panel’s findings and agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment of £500, and involve Mrs X in reviewing its practice guidance. However, it decided not to commission an independent assessment.
26. Mrs X returned to the Ombudsman in October 2025 after completing the statutory complaints procedure.

Analysis

27. The Council received Mrs X’s request for an assessment in September 2024 and accepted the referral eight days later. Guidance says councils should consider referrals within one working day to decide what action is needed. The Council did not do so. This was fault.
28. The Council completed an assessment in October 2024, but a manager did not approve it until December 2024. It did not send a copy to Mrs X until January 2025. This was well outside the expected 45 working day timescale for completing the assessment process and was further fault.
29. As a result, the family was left without a confirmed assessment of B’s needs for several months. Mrs X was also denied the opportunity to review the assessment and comment on its content in a timely way. The delays caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty and frustration.
30. The October 2024 assessment contained inaccuracies and included material copied from a previous assessment without proper checks. There were also failings in the Council’s quality assurance process. The Council acknowledged these failings at Stage Two of the complaints process.
31. The Stage Three panel upheld all parts of Mrs X’s complaint, including concerns about the tone and potential impact of the language used in the assessment. While social workers may need to record difficult information, records should be written carefully and respectfully. In this case, the Council’s own complaints process found the assessment fell short of this standard.
32. The Council was therefore at fault for the poor quality of the assessment and inadequate quality assurance. The inaccuracies risked B not receiving appropriate support, and the wording of the assessment caused Mrs X understandable distress.
33. The Council accepted the Stage Three findings, apologised, and offered a £500 symbolic payment. I consider this a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.
34. The Council decided not to commission an independent assessment, stating the July 2025 assessment addressed the faults with the previous assessment. I found no fault in the way the Council made this decision, so I cannot question the outcome.
35. Following the Stage Three panel, the Council reviewed its practice guidance on writing assessments and senior staff met with Mrs X and took her views into account. The Council has since issued updated guidance to staff. I consider this a proportionate service improvement and do not recommend further action.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has taken appropriate action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman