Summary: Ms X complained about delays in processing her application for a house extension. The Council investigated Ms X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure without fault but it failed to complete agreed recommendations without delay causing Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and ensure it has procedures in place to monitor and carry out recommendations made as part of the statutory complaints process in a timely manner.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about delays in processing her application for a house extension which had been agreed upon and paid for under the Fostering Adaptations Budget (FAB). She said the Council investigated her complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure and upheld her complaint. However, despite agreed recommendations the delays have continued meaning the extension is still not complete.
2. She wants the Council to provide the funds for the extension without further delay.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I considered information from the Council including the stage 2 investigation report, the stage 3 panel report and the relevant adjudication letters. I also considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
8. Ms 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 law and guidance

Statutory complaints procedures - The three-stage process

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.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

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.

What happened

Background

17. Ms X lives in a three-bedroom property with her two children. In 2022, she became the carer for a relative’s child, Y who moved in with Ms X. Ms X began sharing her bedroom with Y.
18. Later in 2022, Ms X contacted the Council submitting an application for a house extension. She wanted financial support to build an extension that would provide a more suitable long-term arrangement for the household. By October 2023, the Council had discussed her request internally and agreed in principle that extra space was needed, though it had concerns about the specific extension design she proposed.
19. The Council’s Children in Care team, responsible for Y at the time, assessed the home as overcrowded and supported the need for additional space. However, in February 2024, the Council told Ms X it could not fund her proposed extension because of the costs, but it would consider a less expensive alternative.
20. In April 2024, Ms X submitted a revised, smaller extension proposal for the Council to consider. By July 2024, having experienced ongoing delays she raised a formal complaint about the handling of her application.
21. The Council investigated Ms X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints process and responded at stage one. It accepted that there had been serious delays, poor communication, and inconsistent information sharing, and it apologised but offered no further remedy. Unhappy with this outcome, Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two of the statutory complaints process.

Stage two investigation

22. The Council began a stage two investigation under the statutory children’s complaints procedure in July 2024. The investigating officer (IO) issued their report in November 2024 and investigated Ms X’s two main complaints. These were:
• Failing to make a timely decision on her application for an extension; and
• Failing to provide formal communication on critical updates.
23. The IO upheld both elements of Ms X’s complaint and concluded she likely experienced several impacts as a result. These included a lack of financial support to ensure suitable living conditions for Y, confusion and distress caused by inconsistent information and delays in communication, and unrealistic suggestions, such as the assumption that one of her children would move out soon and free up space.
24. The IO recommended that the Council apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic payment for the upheld complaints. They also asked the Council to decide on Y’s care plan, including a formal decision about how the available space in the property could be used. The Council was given six weeks from the date of the IO report to provide this decision. They also recommended the Council develop an oversight panel by the end of January 2025 to have management oversight and scrutiny of complex cases to ensure timely decisions are made and progress is monitored for requests involving large financial commitments.
25. 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.
26. The stage two adjudication officer wrote to Ms X in November 2024. They agreed with the IO’s recommendations and provided an apology to Ms X. The stage two process took 26 working days longer than allowed.

Stage three independent panel

27. Ms X was happy with the outcome of the stage two investigation but escalated her complaint to stage three in January 2025. She said the Council failed to carry out the recommendations from the IO report. She explained that although she holds savings above the threshold for Universal Credit, these funds are committed to her agreed contribution toward the extension and are not available for day-to-day living costs. She said the Council’s delay in approving the extension therefore unfairly affected her Universal Credit entitlement.
28. At the panel meeting in March 2025 the panel agreed the communication and service provided by the Council towards Ms X, Y and the wider family was inadequate. The panel made no further comments on Ms X’s points of complaints but agreed with the outcome of the stage two investigation. It recognised that lack of oversight by the management team over Ms X’s application led to delays and the Council sharing inconsistent information which caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. It recommended an increased symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X and Y. The stage three adjudicator wrote to Ms X in early April 2025 accepted and agreed with the panel’s findings and recommendations including the symbolic payment which Ms X accepted.
29. At the end of April 2025, Ms X remained unhappy and complained to us as she had still not received the funds or any formal communication outlining the Council’s agreement for the extension and monies being afforded to her which was a recommended outcome from the stage three panel hearing.

The Council’s response to us

30. Following our enquiries the Council confirmed it had not sent any formal letters to Ms X confirming its financial commitments for the extension. Instead, it said it communicated any updates or progress to Ms X via email. The Council provided no evidence of said correspondence.
31. We asked the Council to explain the ongoing delay in completing the stage three panel’s recommendations regarding Ms X’s application. The Council said that, on the same day as the panel’s decision, it wrote to Ms X and confirmed it would reimburse any loss of benefits she incurred as a result of its delays. It explained that although funding for the extension was secured quickly, further delays arose because it had to navigate legal and procedural complexities associated with releasing the funds. The Council added that its commitment to supporting Ms X’s extension had never been in doubt.
32. The stage two investigation report set out the recommendation for the Council to implement an oversight panel by the end of January 2025 to ensure timely decision-making for large financial commitments. The Council said it had not done so as it had not received any new cases since then that required oversight by a panel. Instead, it concluded a pathway remained in place for officers to escalate cases to the senior leadership team for discussion if necessary.

My findings

33. 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?
34. The stage two investigation and the stage three panel review were carried out properly, although the stage two investigation exceeded the timescales allowed by 26 working days. Ms X then had 20 days to escalate her complaint to stage three, but did so 24 days late. The Council agreed to consider it. Although there were short delays which was fault, it did not cause Ms X a significant injustice.
35. Both the stage two investigation and the stage three independent panel report concluded the Council failed to adequately communicate and handle her application for an extension from the FAB. The IO recommended the Council to apologise to Ms X and pay a financial remedy for the uncertainty and avoidable distress caused by its delay. The recommended financial remedy was suitable and in line with our Guidance on Remedies. The Council agreed with this recommendation and actioned it accordingly which remedied some of Ms X’s injustice.
36. The IO report also found that a lack of managerial oversight resulted in inconsistent information being given to Ms X, causing her uncertainty and frustration. The stage two investigation addressed this and recommended for the Council to establish an oversight panel to ‘project manage’ complex applications. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it had not implemented this recommendation because it had not recently dealt with cases requiring large financial commitments. While this may be the case, its existing process failed Ms X, leading to delays and causing her avoidable distress. The recommendation to setup an oversight panel would ensure it is in place if and when it next receives a complex case such as this so the faults identified in this case do not occur again. Despite agreeing to the formal recommendation it has failed to action it which is fault.
37. At the time of writing, the Council has now submitted the payment for Ms X’s extension, and she confirmed its receipt. However, there is no evidence the Council ever formally set out its financial commitments in writing, despite agreeing to do so following the stage three investigation. It has not offered a payment plan, or offered any guidance on how Ms X’s benefits would be affected now that the money has been awarded and paid. Failing to carry out the agreed recommendations from the stage three report is fault and continues to cause Ms X uncertainty.

Back to top

Actions

38. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise to Ms X in recognition of the distress and ongoing uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to carry out the agreed recommendations. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice.
2. write to Ms X to explain and set out the financial commitments. Ensure to include how the Council proposes to manage the ongoing payment it makes to Ms X to cover the period while Ms X remains ineligible for Universal Credit.
3. Set up the oversight panel in line with the agreed recommendations from the stage two report to ensure it is in place and ready to be used if it receives similar complex cases in the future.
4. Ensure it has adequate processes in place to monitor recommendations from the statutory complaints process and ensure they are completed in a timely manner.
39. The Council should provide evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman