Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint because the Council should have considered her complaints under the statutory procedure. The Council has now agreed to investigate this complaint under the statutory procedure, providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to provide adequate care and intervention for her disabled child resulting in family breakdown. Ms X’s family has received no overnight respite because of an error which also impacted on summer breaks respite in 2024. Ms X believes the Council unfairly threatened her when she told it her family could no longer cope without support. The Council did not find a suitable residential placement for Ms X’s child until October 2024. She wants the Council to apologise for the delays and failure to act. Ms X also complains about the Council’s delay in dealing with her complaints.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says she started raising concerns with the Council that her child’s behaviour was escalating and becoming unmanageable in late 2023 and made a formal complaint in March 2025. Ms X’s child is considered a Child in Need and the Council should have considered her complaints under the statutory procedure for complaints about childrens social care (Getting the Best from Complaints – Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others). The Council instead considered Ms X’s complaints under its two stage corporate complaints procedure.
6. By not progressing this complaint under the correct procedure, the Council denied Ms X access to independent investigation and oversight under stages two and three of the statutory process. This likely amounts to fault causing injustice as it prevented Ms X from having her concerns independently reviewed.
7. We therefore asked the Council to reconsider the complaint under the remaining two stages of the statutory procedure.

Back to top

Agreed action

8. To its credit, the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by accepting Ms X’s complaint at stage two of the statutory complaint procedure; and progressing to stage three if Ms X remains dissatisfied.
9. Within one month of this final decision, the Council should:

• commission an investigation of Ms X’s complaints through stage two (and stage three if requested) of the statutory complaints procedure, and;
• consider an appropriate remedy to Ms X for the Council’s delay in progressing her complaint through the correct procedure, taking into account of our Guidance on Remedies and Guidance for Practitioners.

10. The Council should provide us with evidence the above recommendations have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the matter early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman