Summary: We have decided to discontinue our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s decision not to accept a stage 3 complaint under the statutory children’s complaint procedure. This is because the Council has provided satisfactory reasons for making an early referral to the Ombudsman, and we do not consider it would be proportionate to carry out further investigation ourselves.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr D.
2. Mr D complains the Council has refused to escalate his complaint about its children’s services to stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure. He says this has caused him stress because of the unnecessary delays it has caused in the resolution of his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory procedure for children’s services complaints

6. 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.
7. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all, or all significant complaints upheld, and where the complainant agrees to forego stage 3. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

Mr D’s complaint

13. Several years ago Mr D and his partner successfully applied to the Council to be foster carers. The Council then placed a child with them, but Mr D says the Council made a series of errors in its handling of this, which led to them withdrawing from the fostering role.
14. Mr D made a complaint to the Council, and after receiving its stage 1 response, approached us. In September 2024 we declined to investigate and referred Mr D back to the Council, for it to complete the stage 2 investigation in accordance with the statutory complaints procedure.
15. The Council then completed stage 1 and stage 2 of the procedure. The stage 2 IO upheld the majority of the complaint and made various recommendations, which the Council accepted.
16. After further discussion, the Council then issued a revised adjudication, in which it now upheld all elements of Mr D’s complaints, including those originally not upheld by the stage 2 IO.
17. However, the Council then refused Mr D’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 3 and instead referred him to us again.
18. Mr D made a further complaint to us about this in June 2025.

Back to top

Analysis

19. The law says a council may only make an early referral to the Ombudsman where certain criteria are met. These include that all significant elements of a complaint have been upheld at stage 2, and that the complainant agrees to the early referral.
20. In this case, after revising its original adjudication of the stage 2 report, the Council decided to uphold all elements of the complaint. This element of the criteria has therefore been met. However, Mr D has made clear he wishes the Council to undertake a stage 3 review. As he has not agreed to an early referral, therefore, this element of the criteria has not been met.
21. Our normal position in this situation is that the council in question should now complete stage 3, as the law requires.
22. In this case, however, we have used our discretion to accept an early referral. This is because the Council has explained it considers its relationship with Mr D has deteriorated, to the point where further local investigation of his complaint will still not provide him with resolution.
23. In addition to this, and upon review, I am also not persuaded there is anything to be gained by further investigation by the Ombudsman. I say this because:

• the Council has fully upheld Mr D’s complaint at stage 2;
• the substantive matters Mr D complains about took place over a relatively brief period nearly three years ago;
• the Council has offered Mr D a remedy of £500 to reflect his distress arising from the faults it identified. This is within the range we would typically recommend for this type of injustice, and so I am satisfied an investigation by us will not recommend any further financial remedy than this;
• the Council has also accepted the stage 2 recommendations for a range of appropriate service improvements;
• Mr D has mentioned the offered remedy is inadequate to cover his partner’s loss of earnings, which he says arose from the substantive fault. However, as a matter of course we do not recommend reimbursement for loss of earnings anyway. I note the Council says it has referred Mr D to its insurance procedure if he wishes to pursue this, which I consider to be appropriate.

24. The law permits us to discontinue our investigation, where we consider it would be disproportionate to complete it. One of the reasons we may do this is because we consider the local investigation has adequately addressed the complaint, and further investigation by us will not add anything of significance. I consider that applies here.

Back to top

Decision

25. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman