Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to complete actions it agreed at stage three of the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council was at fault for failing to implement the agreed actions. This caused Mrs X and her son, Y, further distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council should apologise, make further symbolic payments, and send us evidence of service improvements and an action plan for completion of agreed works.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council failed to complete actions it agreed at stage three of the children’s statutory complaint procedure. This includes home adaptations that her son, Y, needs to be able to perform daily living tasks.
2. Mrs X says this has caused Y’s independence and mental health to decline as he does not have access to the aids and adaptations that he needs.

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. 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)
5. 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

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

Legislation and guidance

Statutory complaints procedures - the three-stage 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.
10. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two by an independent investigator.
11. 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 purpose of the stage three panel is to consider the adequacy of the Stage 2 investigation and its findings.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

12. 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.
13. However, we may look at 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?

14. Y is a child with a physical disability.
15. In November 2022, an occupational therapist, working on behalf of the Council, completed an assessment with Y and made recommendations for several aids and home adaptations to support Y in his home. Mrs X said this was a partial assessment of their home, focussing only on certain aspects.
16. Mrs X complained to the Council in March 2024 that it had failed to provide any of these aids and adaptations.
17. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint at stage one and then stage two of the statutory procedure. Following this, Mrs X remained unhappy with the outcome and escalated her complaint to stage three.
18. Mrs X attended the stage three panel in May 2025. The panel found that the Council had failed to undertake the home adaptations identified as necessary in November 2022. It noted this was because the Council delayed for three months in sharing the assessment with Mrs X and that it had poorly communicated with both Mrs X and commissioning services. The panel also acknowledged that Mrs X had contributed to some of the delay because she delayed in submitting finding applications.
19. In addition, the panel also partially upheld that the Council had failed to implement further adaptations that were identified in an updated occupational therapy assessment in February 2024. The panel decided that these delays had a negative impact on Y’s independence and his quality of life.
20. As a result of its findings, the panel recommended that the Council should:

• Review its procedures for assessments, commissioning providers and its communication, both internally and with families.
• Complete an urgent review of Y’s situation, to address the long-standing delays and implement the recommendations from November 2022 and February 2024.
• Apologise to Mrs X for the delays.
• Consider a financial remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X and Y by the delays.

21. The Council then wrote to Mrs X shortly after with its view of the panel meeting. It agreed with all the panel’s findings and recommendations. It offered Mrs Y a payment of £150 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, and £500 on behalf of Y for the failure in implementing the adaptations. It apologised to Mrs X shortly after.
22. In considering the recommendations from the panel, the Council decided to complete a new review of Y’s needs, because of the time that had passed since the original assessments. The Council started to look for an occupational therapist to complete this new assessment the same month.
23. Council case records show that it appointed an occupational therapist to start work at the end of November 2025. However, when the Council sent the details of the therapist to Mrs X, she says she was unhappy for the therapist to start work with Y because she was unable to verify their credentials and asked the Council to provide further information, which there is no evidence it did. Mrs X chased the Council for an update on a new occupational therapist several times after this.
24. The Council found an alternative occupational therapist in January 2026.They started their assessment at the end of February 2026 and completed it a month later, making several recommendations for aids and adaptations for Y.
25. The Council agreed these recommendations shortly after and made a referral to its housing department for them to be implemented in early May 2026. The Council confirmed at the end of June 2026, the majority of these had been implemented, apart from access arrangements to the property and bath rails, which were both recommendations from the February 2026 assessment and not outstanding from 2022 or 2024. The Council noted the delays with the access to the property were because of the property being in a conservation area and other practical considerations.

Findings

26. If a complaint has already been through the second stage of the Children Act complaints procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation.
27. Consequently, we will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed.
28. I have considered the documents from Mrs X’s complaint, and I note that:
• Each part of the complaint was considered and addressed by the Council.
• The independent investigation report refers to relevant procedure and case records. These case records support the investigator’s findings.
• The main parts of Mrs X’s complaint were upheld.
29. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said. If I were to reinvestigate the complaint, it is also unlikely that this would lead to a different outcome for Mrs X. So, a reinvestigation would be of no benefit to her.
30. I have, however, considered whether the Council’s proposed remedies properly recognise the injustice it has caused and whether the Council implemented these without delay.
31. The Council apologised to Mrs X without delay and started to implement the recommended service improvements.
32. I have also considered whether the Council remedied the injustice caused to Mrs X and Y from November 2022 when an occupational therapist first made the recommendations, to May 2025 when the stage three investigation ended.
33. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance outlines that we can recommend small, symbolic payments which recognise an injustice.
34. The Council offered a payment of £150 as a financial remedy to Mrs X. The Council said this was to recognise her time and trouble in complaining and the distress, upset or frustration caused by its faults. The Council also offered a payment of £500 to Mrs X on behalf of Y to recognise the injustice caused to him by the significant delay in implementing the occupational therapist’s recommendations.
35. This financial remedy is in line with our guidance, so I have no grounds to recommend that the Council increase this payment for the faults identified at stage three of the complaint’s procedure. I will ask the Council to reoffer these payments to Mrs X.
36. However, despite the Council agreeing in May 2025 to implement the adaptations as a matter of urgency, I do not consider the Council did so. I accept that the Council decided to complete a new assessment of Y’s needs due to the time that had passed since the assessments in 2022 and 2024, and the likelihood of Y’s needs changing during this period.
37. Although the Council did start to look for an occupational therapist in June 2025, there were significant delays in appointing someone suitable. I accept that Mrs X then declined to work with the therapist, as she could not verify their credentials and the Council sought the services of a new therapist who completed their assessment in February 2026.
38. I consider the Council’s delay of six months from May 2025, when it said it would complete the actions to the end of November 2025, when it found an occupational therapist to be a significant delay and fault. This caused Mrs X and Y further frustration who had been reassured that actions would have been completed as a matter of urgency in May 2025. Mrs X also spent a considerable amount of time chasing this matter.
39. In terms of the actions still outstanding from the 2022 and 2024 assessments, the Council confirmed that these had been completed by the end of June 2026. The delay in commissioning an occupational therapist contributed towards these further delays.
40. I understand that the recommendations for access to the property and bath rails are still outstanding, but as these did not form part of the original investigation, I cannot consider any injustice arising from this delay.
41. Considering the actions from the 2022 and 2025 assessments, there was a further significant delay of around a year, in addition to the two-and-a-half-year delay acknowledged in the stage three process. This was fault, which caused Mrs X and Y avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty.
42. I will ask the Council to apologise and make a further symbolic financial remedy to recognise the injustice caused by these further delays after May 2025. In calculating the financial remedies, I have considered the prolonged length of time that Y had been without these services and his vulnerability.
43. I will also ask the Council to provide an action plan for completion of the agreed adaptations and evidence of the completed service improvements.

Back to top

Action

44. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Mrs X for the further delay in providing Y’s adaptations. 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;
• re-offer and make the payments of £150 to Mrs X and £500 to Mrs X on behalf of Y for the injustice identified during the statutory procedure;
• make a symbolic payment of £250 to Mrs X to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by further delays in providing Y’s adaptations;
• make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mrs X on behalf of Y, to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by further delays in providing aids and adaptations;
• provide an action plan for the completion of all outstanding agreed adaptations; and
• provide evidence of completion of all the service improvements agreed at stage three of the statutory procedure.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman