Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete the recommendations made following a stage three children’s statutory complaint. We found the Council at fault for delays in implementing some of the agreed actions and for its consideration of the recommendations. The Council has agreed to apologise for the delay and reconsider the financial remedy in line with the panel’s recommendation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has failed to implement the recommendations it accepted following the stage three statutory complaints procedure. She says none of the agreed actions have been completed, and the remedy offered does not adequately reflect the injustice caused by the Council's upheld faults.
2. Mrs X says this has caused significant distress and had a significant impact on her and her family’s wellbeing.

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 recommend 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

Relevant 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. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

14. 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.
15. 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.

Direct Payments

16. Parents/carers of disabled children can ask for a direct payment (DP) to meet the needs of the child. The council must carry out an assessment and DPs must be sufficient to meet the assessed needs. DPs must be used by the parent/carer to meet the child’s needs. DPs do not affect any benefit entitlement.

What happened

17. Mrs X’s children have eligible care and support needs. The Council had agreed a package of 42 hours of support each week, which was arranged through a direct payment.
18. In May 2023, Mrs X contacted the Council to explain that the care agency providing support to her family was ending its service and to ask the Council for help. The care agency ended its involvement in June 2023. No replacement care agency was put in place and the children therefore did not receive the support the Council had assessed they needed.
19. Mrs X contacted the Council again in November 2023. She explained that she was unable to access the direct payment account, had no support in place and was struggling to cope. She also contacted the Council in June 2024.
20. In August 2024, a social worker noted that around £65,000 had accrued in the direct payment account and had not been used. The records also noted that neither child had received support since June 2023. Mrs X told the Council that there was no care agency in place. By September 2024, the accrued balance had increased to around £73,000.
21. A funding meeting took place in October 2024. It noted that monitoring of the direct payments was overdue and agreed that the continuation of the existing support package should be reviewed through a family reassessment.
22. Also in October 2024, Mrs X complained to the Council under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Among other matters, she complained that the Council had failed to provide the agreed support and that she had been unable to access the direct payments.
23. The complaint progressed through the statutory procedure and, in September 2025, was considered by an independent Stage three review panel. The panel identified shortcomings in the Stage two investigation. In relation to the direct payments, it found that the Stage two investigation had not properly explored why such a significant amount of money had accrued. It concluded that Mrs X clearly needed support and that the Council should have done more to help her access and use the direct payments. The panel also found that Mrs X had not been provided with the necessary information to enable her to access or use the payments. As a result, the children did not receive the level of support the Council had assessed they needed.
24. The panel made seven recommendations, including service improvements concerning the statutory children’s complaints process. Of relevance to this complaint, it recommended that the Council:
• use all reasonable endeavours to rebuild Mrs X’s trust and confidence, including arranging a meeting without delay to ensure she received the appropriate level of support;
• consider compensation for the absence of service provision while she was unable to access the direct payments; and
• apologise to Mrs X for the shortcomings identified.
25. In November 2025, the Council responded to the Stage three report. It accepted the panel’s findings and recommendations and apologised to Mrs X for the distress caused. It also offered her £1,000 compensation in response to the recommendation that it consider compensation for the absence of service provision.
26. However, the recommended meeting with Mrs X had not taken place. The Council said it would arrange this when the appropriate worker returned from extended leave.
27. Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2025.
28. The Council paid Mrs X the £1,000 compensation in July 2026, around eight months after it offered the payment. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had continued to engage with Mrs X and had updated her assessment. However, the recommended meeting had still not taken place. In July 2026, the Council contacted Mrs X to ask whether she still wanted the meeting to go ahead.
29. The Council explained that it considered the £1,000 payment to be a symbolic remedy for Mrs X’s distress and inconvenience and for the loss of opportunity for the family to benefit from the intended care and support. It said it had not considered there to be a quantifiable financial loss because Mrs X had not paid for care services during the period when support was not provided.

My findings

30. The Council accepted the stage three panel’s recommendations in November 2025. It promptly apologised to Mrs X and offered her £1,000 compensation. However, it took a further eight months to make the payment and, at the time of my investigation, had still not arranged the meeting recommended by the panel. The Council has therefore failed to adequately implement the recommendations it accepted. This was fault and caused Mrs X further distress and avoidable uncertainty.
31. I have considered whether the £1,000 payment adequately remedies the injustice identified by the stage three panel. I recognise the Council’s explanation that this is a symbolic remedy and is not intended to compensate Mrs X for the cost of care. I also recognise that the balance accrued in the direct payment account does not, in itself, represent a financial loss to her.
32. However, the Stage three panel specifically recommended that the Council consider compensation for the absence of service provision while Mrs X was unable to access the direct payments. Its recommendation was therefore not limited to a symbolic remedy or for reimbursing any expenditure incurred by Mrs X. The relevant injustice is that, for a prolonged period, her children did not receive the care and support the Council had assessed they required.
33. The agreed package was 42 hours of support each week. The absence of this provision continued from June 2023 and was still being addressed in 2024, by which time more than £70,000 had accrued in the direct payment account. I consider the prolonged duration and extent of the support not provided, and the impact this had on two children with eligible care and support needs, to be significant.
34. I am therefore not satisfied that the £1,000 payment adequately recognises the full injustice caused by the prolonged absence of service provision. The Council’s consideration should not be limited to whether Mrs X incurred a direct financial loss, but should take account of the nature, extent and duration of the injustice identified by the Stage three panel.
35. I recommend that the Council reconsider the amount of symbolic payment offered to Mrs X, taking full account of the prolonged absence of service provision and the resulting injustice.

Back to top

Action

36. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of this final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mrs X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology, for the delay and failure to fully implement the Stage three panel’s recommendations;
• contact Mrs X to arrange the meeting recommended by the Stage three panel; and
• reconsider its response to the Stage three panel’s recommendation to provide compensation for the absence of service while Mrs X was unable to access the direct payments. In doing so, it should take account of the nature, extent and duration of the support Mrs X’s children did not receive, and write to Mrs X explaining the outcome of its reconsideration.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman