Summary: Mrs Y completed Stage 2 of the statutory children's complaints procedure but did not then request a Stage 3 review panel. When she later tried to progress her complaint, the Council said it could not convene a panel because the investigation notes were no longer available. However, the Stage 2 reports and adjudication remain available, and the Council did not adequately explain why it could not complete the statutory process. The Council has now agreed to convene a Stage 3 panel without delay.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about how the Council conducted its assessment to determine whether her children needed support. She says the Council:
• Delayed carrying out a Section 17 assessment.
• Failed to consider each child’s needs individually and as a family
• Incorrectly deemed early help to be suitable rather than ‘Child in Need’.
• Appointed a social worker who didn’t understand the disabilities.
• Failed to take account of the parents’ circumstances.
• Failed to consider all reports available; and
• Did not explain why the matter did not meet the criteria for assessment by the disability team.

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 recommend 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
6. 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

What should happen

7. 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.
8. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
9. 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 investigate the complaint and an Independent Person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring independence. The stage two process should be completed within 25 working days, but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
10. 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.
11. 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. This independence is not available to complaints put through the corporate complaints procedure. Because of this, we expect people to complete the complaints procedure before we consider whether there was fault in how the Council investigated their concerns.

What happened

12. Mrs Y complained about the Council's involvement with her four children, all of whom have autism diagnoses and significant difficulties accessing education. Mrs Y said the Council failed to properly understand the impact of the children’s disabilities, carried out inadequate assessments, wrongly concluded that specialist social care support was not needed and failed to provide appropriate support for the family.

Stage 1 complaint

13. In June 2024, Mrs Y complained about a ‘Families First’ assessment completed by the Council. She also complained about decisions made by the Council’s Children with Disabilities Team (CWDT). Mrs Y said the assessment failed to properly consider the impact of disability, relied on inaccurate information from schools, and wrongly concluded there were concerns about their parenting. They also said the CWDT did not properly consider whether their children met the threshold for specialist support.
14. The Council responded in August 2024. It said the referral was appropriately screened, the assessment completed correctly, and the children did not meet the criteria for involvement from CWDT. The Council did not uphold the complaints but agreed to place Mrs Y’s comments alongside the assessment records.
15. Mrs Y remained dissatisfied and asked for the complaint to move to Stage 2.

Further complaint

16. In January 2025, Mrs Y made a further complaint about educational provision and social care support. In particular, she complained about provision for one of her children, the outcome of the first Section 17 assessment and delays in completing a second Section 17 assessment.
17. The Council decided to separate the social care and education complaint and agreed to consider the education complaint under its corporate complaints procedure. I will not revisit those points here because that complaint is part of a separate Ombudsman investigation.

Stage 2 investigation

18. The Council commissioned an independent Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) to investigate the statutory children’s services complaints at Stage 2. The investigation considered four key complaints:
• The ‘Families First’ assessment completed in April 2024 was inadequate.
• The CWDT failed to undertake a Section 17 assessment between April and November 2024.
• The first Section 17 assessment was inadequate.
• The second Section 17 assessment was inadequate.
19. The complaint investigation involved meetings with Mrs Y, interviews with managers and a review of all relevant children's services records. The IO and IP confirmed they had full access to the Council's files and documentation.

Stage 2 findings

20. The IO partially upheld the complaint about the Families First assessment. Although the Council followed its procedures, the IO accepted evidence from a senior manager that the Council should have started a Section 17 assessment instead of a Families First assessment.
21. The IO did not uphold the complaint about the CWDT. They found the Council considered the children's circumstances and it was entitled to decide the children did not meet the eligibility criteria.
22. The IO did not uphold the complaint about the first Section 17 assessment. They found the assessment considered the children's individual circumstances and family context. The Council’s decision to offer support through Early Help rather than a Child in Need (CIN) plan was supported by evidence available at the time.
23. The IO also did not uphold the complaint about the second Section 17 assessment. They accepted the assessment was thorough, considered relevant information, took account of the parents' views, and adequately explained why the children did not meet the CWDT criteria.
24. Overall, the investigation outcome was:
• Complaint 1: Partially upheld.
• Complaint 2: Not upheld.
• Complaint 3: Not upheld.
• Complaint 4: Not upheld.
25. The IP agreed with the IO’s findings and conclusions.

Adjudication

26. In November 2025, the Council's Adjudicating Officer (AO) accepted the IO’s findings. The Council agreed it should have considered a Section 17 sooner and apologised for that delay. However, it agreed with the IO that the children did not meet the CWDT threshold and that both Section 17 assessments were adequate.
27. The Council apologised for the delay and said that it would share learning points from the investigation with staff. It did not agree to a financial remedy or further social care support.
28. The Council advised Mrs Y that, if she remained dissatisfied, she could request a Stage 3 Review Panel within 20 working days.
29. Before requesting a Stage 3 review, Mrs Y complained to the Ombudsman about the social care assessments and the Council's decisions about whether the children needed a CIN plan and any associated support.

What happened next

30. Mrs Y completed Stage 2 of the statutory children's complaints procedure and received both the IO’s report and the Council's adjudication. The adjudication letter advised Mrs Y that, if she remained dissatisfied, she could request a Stage 3 Review Panel within 20 working days.
31. Mrs Y did not request a Stage 3 Review Panel at the time because she mistakenly thought she could approach the Ombudsman after Stage 2. This is because the Council correctly separated the education and social care issues and they followed different complaints procedures. Mrs Y did not understand that she needed to request a Stage 3 review for the social care complaint, whereas the education complaint consisted of only two stages. I am satisfied this provides an appropriate explanation for why Mrs Y did not request the review sooner. It would therefore be unfair to treat Mrs Y as having lost the opportunity to complete the statutory complaints procedure.
32. The purpose of a Stage 3 Review Panel is to consider the adequacy of the Stage 2 investigation, hear from both parties and make recommendations. The statutory guidance makes clear that panels do not normally carry out a fresh investigation. Instead, they review the complaint using the material produced during Stage 2.
33. The guidance says panel papers should normally include relevant Stage 1 information, the Stage 2 investigation report, the Council's adjudication, any relevant policies or guidance, and any comments submitted by the complainant. It also provides that the IO and IP may attend to assist the panel, but if either is unavailable the Chair may decide whether the panel can proceed without them.
34. The Council said it could not convene a Stage 3 panel because the IO and IP no longer hold the working papers they used during the investigation, in line with data retention requirements, and both have since moved to other authorities.
35. However, the key Stage 2 documents remain available, including the IO's report, the IP's report and the Council's adjudication. The Council has not explained why the loss of the IO and IP's working papers would prevent a panel from considering the complaint when the statutory guidance says panels review the existing Stage 2 material rather than undertaking a fresh investigation:
36. "[Panel papers] should normally include: information on Stage 1 (as relevant), the Stage 2 investigation report(s), the local authority's adjudication, any policy, practice or guidance information relevant to the complaint, and any comments that the complainant has submitted to the Panel. The papers should also include information on any local practice around Panels, such as conduct, roles and responsibilities."
37. The Council is also expected to retain the children's social care records that informed the assessments and Stage 2 investigation. In the absence of any explanation as to why those records, together with the Stage 2 reports and adjudication, would be insufficient for a Stage 3 panel to consider the complaint, we are not persuaded that the unavailability of the IO and IP or their working papers makes it impossible to convene a panel.

Back to top

Action

38. The Council will take steps to complete the statutory complaints procedure. This will include convening a Stage 3 Review Panel without delay and within the statutory timescales.
39. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman