Summary: Mr X complained about substantive children’s social care matters and asked the Council to progress his complaint to stage 2 of the statutory procedure. We have not found fault in the Council’s decision not to progress his complaint to stage 2. The Council was entitled to rely on Mr X’s clear withdrawal of his complaint and treat the matter as closed, and it was not at fault for refusing to reopen the complaint when he raised this again months later.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in connection with children’s social care involvement with his family. Mr X asked the Council to progress his complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure at stage 2, but the Council refused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated the Council’s decision not to progress Mr X’s complaint to stage 2. I have not investigated the underlying children’s social care matters Mr X raised, as these are not the issue I am deciding in this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by the Council and Mr X, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments submitted before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory children’s complaints procedure

8. Complaints about children’s social care functions are considered under the Children Act 1989 statutory representations and complaints procedure, set out in the Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 and the statutory guidance Getting the Best from Complaints.

Back to top

What happened

9. In December 2023, a child in Mr X’s family became looked after by the Council. Mr X later complained about aspects of children’s services involvement and support. He also complained about communication and handling during the period leading into care proceedings.
10. In late July 2024, Mr X’s stage 1 complaint was confirmed by the Council. The Council provided its stage 1 response in mid-August 2024.
11. Mr X initially indicated he wished to progress to stage 2, but on 3 September 2024 he told the Council he was not interested in taking the complaints process further.
12. There was further correspondence and a meeting in mid-November 2024. Towards the end of November 2024, Mr X asked for stage 2, including compensation. The Council sought legal advice, and in early December 2024, it told Mr X it would not progress the complaint while the care proceedings were ongoing.
13. The care proceedings concluded in mid-June 2025.
14. In mid-July 2025, on two separate occasions, Mr X emailed the Council to withdraw all complaints.
15. In October 2025, Mr X raised new complaints and also asked for the historic complaints to be reopened. The Council said it would consider the new complaint points but did not consider reopening the historic complaints appropriate. Mr X did not challenge this at the time. He later challenged the refusal to reopen the earlier complaint in November 2025.
16. In mid-December 2025, the Council confirmed it would not reopen the historic complaints and signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

17. The issue for me is whether the Council was at fault in refusing to progress Mr X’s earlier complaint to stage 2 when he asked again in late 2025.
18. Mr X says the Council should not have relied on care proceedings as a reason to limit complaint consideration, and that the draft decision accepted the Council’s position without sufficient scrutiny. My decision is not based on the view that the existence of care proceedings automatically prevents a complaint progressing. It is based on what happened after the proceedings ended, including Mr X’s withdrawal of his complaint and the timing of his later request to reopen it.
19. The evidence shows the Council accepted and responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage 1 in August 2024. Mr X then told the Council on 3 September 2024 he did not wish to take the complaints process further. Although he later requested stage 2 in November 2024, the Council explained in December 2024 that it would not progress the matter while care proceedings were ongoing.
20. Once the care proceedings concluded in June 2025, Mr X emailed the Council in July 2025 to withdraw all complaints, repeating this request on two consecutive days. The Council was entitled to rely on that clear withdrawal and treat the complaint as closed.
21. Mr X did not ask the Council to reopen the historic complaint again until October 2025, when he raised new complaint points and requested that historic complaints be reopened. He challenged the Council’s refusal in November 2025. By then, several months had passed since the end of proceedings and since his withdrawal request. In those circumstances, I do not consider the Council was at fault for deciding it would not reopen the historic complaint and progress it to stage 2.
22. Even if the Council had agreed to progress the matter to stage 2 at that point, the substantive issues Mr X complained about mainly relate to events in 2023 and early 2024, and a significant part of what he raised was closely connected to the care proceedings. These are matters we would be unlikely to investigate now due to the Ombudsman’s normal approach to late complaints, and because issues determined in court (or inextricably linked to court proceedings) are not generally within our jurisdiction.
23. I therefore find no fault in the Council’s decision not to progress Mr X’s complaint to stage 2 at the point he requested this again, and there is no basis for recommending the Council now restart the statutory process for the historic complaint.

Back to top

Decision

24. We have not found fault in the Council’s decision not to progress Mr X’s complaint to stage 2. The Council was entitled to rely on Mr X’s clear withdrawal of his complaint and treat the matter as closed, and it was not at fault for refusing to reopen the complaint when he raised this again months later.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman