Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s investigation into safeguarding concerns raised about her as a foster carer. The Council investigated Mrs X's complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure without fault. However, it failed to provide an appropriate remedy to recognise the injustice the faults caused. It also delayed providing Mrs X with copies of documents which it agreed to do following the conclusion of the complaints process. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s safeguarding investigation into concerns raised about her as a foster carer. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure, however she was dissatisfied with the outcome.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her distress and she wanted policy changes to ensure similar faults did not occur in the future.

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. I considered information from the Council including the stage two investigation report, the stage three panel report and the relevant adjudication letters. I also considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
8. 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

The statutory complaints procedure

9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.

Allegations against people working with children

17. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. The council must decide whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47).
18. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect. Enquiry assessments should be completed within 45 working days.

Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO)

19. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children. Following an allegation a strategy meeting will take place, overseen by the LADO to decide how to manage the investigation.
20. Outcomes of the case are determined at a final strategy meeting. These include:
• No further action – the allegation did not meet the criteria for investigation.
• Substantiated – sufficient evidence to prove the allegation.
• False – sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation.
• Malicious – sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation and there has been a deliberate act to deceive.
• Unfounded – where there is no evidence which supports the allegation being made.
• Unsubstantiated – insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation. The term does not imply guilt or innocence

Social Work England

21. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.

What happened

Background

22. Mrs X is a foster carer who lives in Council B’s area and in 2023 was caring for three children. The three children are originally from this Council’s area. Following an allegation from one of the children they were removed from Mrs X’s care. The LADO from Council B held a strategy meeting and decided to being Section 47 enquiries, jointly with the Council. The police were also informed. This Council took responsibility for carrying out the Section 47 enquiries.
23. The Section 47 enquiries concluded the children were now living elsewhere and were not at risk. Following the completion of Section 47 enquiries the LADO from Council B made an on-balance decision to substantiate the allegations with recommendations for Mrs X’s fostering agency to take learning forward. There were no other sanctions and the police took no further action.
24. Mrs X was unhappy with how the LADO at Council B oversaw the investigation, in particularly that it took too long and she was not given the opportunity to formally respond to the allegations. She complained to Council B and then to us. We found some fault with how the LADO engaged Mrs X in the process, but found it followed the correct process in how it investigated the matter.
25. However, we did not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about how this Council carried out the Section 47 enquiries or about her dissatisfaction with the children’s social worker (SW Z). We decided this Council needed the opportunity to respond to those matters and therefore advised Mrs X to complain about that to the Council separately, which she did.

Mrs X’s complaint to the Council

26. Mrs X complained to the Council in January 2024 and it decided to investigate her concerns under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The main points of complaint were about how the Council carried out the Section 47 enquiries and about the service she received from SW Z. Mrs X was unhappy with the stage one response and therefore the Council started a stage two investigation in April 2024.

Stage two investigation

27. The investigating officer (IO) issued their report in July 2024 and investigated eleven points of complaint. These included:
• Failing to respond to the allegations against Mrs X on the day it was made aware of them.
• Failing to inform Mrs X of the outcome of the strategy meeting.
• Failing to speak with Mrs X as part the enquiries.
• Not completing the Section 47 enquiries within timescales.
• SW Z was biased, shared inappropriate information and made inappropriate comments to the children.
• Meeting minutes contained inaccurate information about Mrs X.
28. The IO upheld two elements of Mrs X’s complaints. They found the Council had failed to gather information from Mrs X during the enquiries and completed the investigation well outside of timescales with no reasons given. The IO did not make findings on Mrs X’s complaints about SW Z because they were unable to speak with them. The IO partially upheld Mrs X’s complaint about meeting minutes being inaccurate.
29. The IO made recommendations to apologise to Mrs X, amend the inaccurate minutes and provide learning to social workers to ensure information is gathered from foster carers during Section 47 enquiries.
30. The IP wrote their report which supported the IO’s findings and recommendations. The IP was satisfied the IO had conducted a fair and thorough investigation of the complaints raised.
31. The stage two adjudication officer wrote to Mrs X in September 2024 accepting the IO’s findings and recommendations and apologised for the upheld complaints in the letter. The Stage two process took 35 working days longer than allowed.

Stage three independent panel

32. Mrs X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation and asked the Council to escalate the matter to a stage three panel. The panel met in November 2024 and considered the complaints which were not upheld at stage two. The panel agreed with the stage two conclusions and made no changes. The panel recommended the Council provide Mrs X with a copy of the Section 47 report as part of her recent Subject Access Request (SAR) for information and to ensure documents which contained inaccurate information were correct.
33. The Council’s stage three adjudicator wrote to Mrs X in November 2024 accepting the panel’s findings. The adjudicator changed one finding to upheld around inaccuracies in meeting minutes and said these would be amended to reflect that Mrs X was not suspended from work. The adjudicator advised Mrs X to approach the Information Commissioner (ICO) about concerns she had about inaccuracies in the Section 47 report.
34. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us. She remained unhappy with the conduct of SW Z and said she still had not received a copy of the Section 47 report which she believed would contain errors and lies.

The Council’s response to us

35. The Council said it had taken action around the agreed recommendations. It confirmed it did not speak with SW Z during the statutory procedure because they were absent from work until March 2025. Since the conclusion of the complaints process the Council said it:
• Had shared learning with leadership and service managers around social workers conduct during Section 47 enquiries to ensure all parties are spoken with as part of any investigation.
• Amended inaccuracies in the minutes in November 2024 however found no evidence it had provided Mrs X with a copy until September 2025.
• Provided a copy of the Section 47 report to Mrs X in September 2025.

My findings

36. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, our role is to consider the following:
• was the investigation properly conducted and are the conclusions evidence based. If not, would the Ombudsman reach a different view based on the information available to us?;
• did the Council offer a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by fault? If not, would the Ombudsman recommend any further remedial action?; and
• has the Council fully implemented any agreed remedy? If not, has the delay caused any further injustice to the complainant?
37. The stage two investigation and stage three panel review were properly conducted, albeit there were delays at stage two which took 35 days longer than allowed which was fault.
38. During the complaints process the IO reviewed and considered case records, met with Mrs X, and carried out interviews with relevant officers who were available. The Independent Person (IP) raised no concerns and agreed with the IO’s findings and conclusions. The stage three panel independently considered Mrs X’s concerns but concurred with the stage two findings. There was no fault in how the Council considered the complaints so I accept the findings.
39. The complaints process identified areas of fault which are outlined above and which the Council has fully accepted, acknowledged and apologised for. It has explained the action it has taken against the recommendations. I am satisfied with the progress it has made to prevent recurrence of the faults found in this case.
40. However, the Council delayed both providing Mrs X with evidence of the amended minutes and providing her with a copy of the Section 47 report until after our involvement. That was fault. It also failed to remedy the personal injustice caused to Mrs X. The upheld complaints caused Mrs X distress and left her with uncertainty around whether the outcome may have been different had she been more involved in the Council’s enquiries. I have made recommendations below to remedy this injustice.
41. It is acknowledged Mrs X has ongoing concerns about the conduct of SW Z. As explained above, complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.

Back to top

Action

42. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to:
1. pay Mrs X £150 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by the upheld complaints and the delays at stage two of the complaints procedure.
2. Ensure it has procedures in place to keep oversight of actions and recommendations in place following the conclusion of the statutory complaints procedure to prevent any delays or drift in completing those actions.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

44. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman