Summary: Ms X complained the Council’s consideration of a complaint she raised through the children’s statutory complaint procedure about how the Council cared for a child, Y, was flawed. We found the Council was at fault when it overturned some of the statutory investigation’s findings, and did not provide an appropriate remedy to Y for the complaints it did uphold. This included that Y became isolated and institutionalised while they remained in an unregistered placement for more than four years. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Y.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council’s consideration of a complaint she raised through the children’s statutory complaint procedure about how the Council cared for a child, Y, was flawed. Ms X complained the statutory investigation did not gather all the relevant information, some of its findings were not supported by the evidence it outlined, its recommendations were insufficient to remedy the injustice caused to Y and the Council overturned some of the independent stage three panel’s findings.
2. Ms X said because of the Council’s failures Y remained in an unregistered placement and without education in line with their Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X wanted the Council to uphold the complaints she raised through the statutory complaint procedure, and provide appropriate remedies for the injustice Y had been caused.

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. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
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(i), as amended)
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
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 legislation and guidance

Looked after child

9. Family Courts can make care orders which place children in the care of a council because of concerns about the adequacy of the parents’ care causing significant harm to the child. Once a care order is in place the council has parental responsibility for that child. (Children Act 1989, Sections 31 and 33)
10. Councils can care for children under a care order by placing them in a children’s home. A children’s home is an establishment that provides care and accommodation wholly or mainly for children. Children’s homes must be registered with Ofsted and must meet certain criteria and standards to be successfully registered. (Care Standards Act 2000)

Deprivation of liberty

11. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves.
12. A key principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests. The decision-maker also has to consider if there is a less restrictive choice available that can achieve the same outcome
13. The Supreme Court defined deprivation of liberty as when: “The person is under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave, and the person lacks capacity to consent to these arrangements”. When a person is deprived of their liberty in a hospital or care home, the organisation must put deprivation of liberty safeguards in place (DOLs). DOLs ensure the restrictions on the person’s liberty are proportionate and in their best interests.
14. Inherent jurisdiction is a common law power which allows a court to make a decision about DOLs where there is no existing law available. The courts can use inherent jurisdiction to protect vulnerable children and young people including by authorising DOLs in an unregistered secure children’s homes where a council is unable to identify an otherwise suitable placement. (Re T (A Child) – [2022] AC 723). A court issuing a DOLs for a child in an unregistered placement does not remove the duty for a council to care for the child in a registered placement as set out in paragraph 10.

Education

15. Under s22(3A) of the Children Act 1989 councils have a duty to promote the educational achievement of looked after children. Every council must appoint an officer (Virtual School Head) with strategic responsibility for promoting the educational achievement of looked after children within its area.
16. All looked after children should have a Personal Education Plan (PEP). A PEP has information on short and long-term education targets, performance against targets, pastoral needs and welfare, disciplinary record, child’s views, interventions to support the child. Where a looked after child also has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, the PEP review should coincide with the annual review of the EHC Plan.
17. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
18. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to amend, maintain or discontinue the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
19. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
20. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s:
• description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan;
• amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan; and
• decision not to amend an EHC Plan following a review or reassessment.

Statutory complaint procedure

21. 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.
22. Complaints about matters that are not about the actions or decisions of the council complained about, or a body acting on its behalf, are not considered through the statutory complaints procedure. This includes decisions made by a court.
23. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond. If a complainant and council agree, the complaint can be considered from stage two without first requiring stage one. At stage two 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.
24. 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. The Adjudicating Officer makes a decision on each point of complaint and decides what the council’s response 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. The purpose of the stage three panel includes considering the adequacy of the stage two investigation and obtaining any further information that may help resolve the complaint. The panel will reach a finding on each of the complaints being reviewed and make recommendations for remedies and service improvements to the council.
28. Following the stage three panel the council will consider the panel’s report at Director level and provide the complainant its response to the panel’s recommendations. If the Director deviates from the panel’s recommendations they should explain why in that response.
29. The children’s statutory 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 children’s statutory complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
30. 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

31. Y is a young person with special educational needs and disabilities that impacts how they understand the world. As a result Y can become upset and anxious and their resulting behaviour can put them and others at risk. The Council had provided accommodation for Y on their parent’s request.
32. In 2019 Y was a child and the placement Y was cared for in broke down. As an interim and emergency measure the Council provided Y a placement at property 1 (P1).
33. The Council identified a different property (P2) in early 2020 as an appropriate place for Y to live longer term, but it needed to be developed for Y’s needs which included some building work. Y would remain in P1 until P2 was adapted and registered with Ofsted as a children’s home.
34. In the autumn of 2020 a court issued a care order specifying Y would be cared for by the Council. At the same time the court also authorised a deprivation of liberty for Y at P1 using its inherent jurisdiction. This was considered again later in other court hearings.
35. P1 is a secure and self-contained property on the premises of a provision for adults. It is not registered with Ofsted as a placement for children. Y’s care at P1 was delivered by a care provider commissioned by the Council. Because of Y’s needs, several adults stayed with them at all times. There were no other children or young people living in P1. Y’s education was also delivered at P1 by tutors.
36. At the time of this investigation Y still lived at P1.

The complaint

37. Ms X, acting as Y’s advocate complained to the Council in June 2023 about Y’s care. Ms X asked it to considered her complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Ms X raised eight points of complaint about how the Council had planned and provided Y’s care and education since 2019. Ms X complained the Council failed to properly plan for and provide appropriate care for Y when it placed them in an unregistered placement, and had not provided sufficient education opportunities for them. Ms X said this had a significant detrimental impact on Y’s mental, emotional, and physical health whilst they were in the care of the local authority.
38. The Council considered the complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaint procedure and appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP). The IO and IP met with Ms X and agreed the statement of complaint. Ms X wanted a number of outcomes for Y which included an apology on Y’s file, financial compensation and a date for a move to a registered children’s home.
39. The IO and IP interviewed Ms X, Y’s mother, Y’s Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO) who had overall responsibility for ensuring Y’s care was sufficient, social care officers, the education and care providers and senior Council Officers. The IO and IP also considered the case records and relevant legislation and guidance.
40. The IO provided the Council with the outcome of the investigation and their recommendations. The IO upheld one element of complaint, partially upheld three elements and did not uphold four. It considered Ms X’s desired outcomes and made further recommendations to the Council. The IP agreed with the IO’s report and identified no issues with how the IO had completed their investigation.
41. The Council’s Adjudicating Officer (AO) considered the report and wrote an adjudication letter to Ms X. The Council agreed with all of the IO’s findings, except one upheld complaint the AO did not uphold. It set out the actions it would take.
42. Ms X requested a stage three panel to consider the complaint. Ms X stated the stage two investigation was flawed, she disagreed with some of the findings and the remedy for the injustice identified was insufficient
43. The Council arranged a stage three panel. The panel considered Ms X’s representations and heard from the IO and the AO. The panel considered seven not upheld or partially upheld complaints. It upheld three complaints, partially upheld two and did not uphold one. It could not make a finding on one point of complaint. The panel agreed with the IO’s recommendations and made some additional recommendations to the Council.
44. The Council received the panel’s report and wrote to Ms X. The Council disagreed with four of the panel’s findings. It changed two upheld complaints to partially upheld, one partially upheld complaint to not upheld, and one partially upheld complaint to upheld. It set out the actions it would take as a result of the complaint.

The individual complaints

45. Complaint one. Ms X complained there was a lack of appropriate and timely care planning which led to Y being in an unregistered placement (P1) since 2019. The IO found Y had been in an unregistered placement on a temporary basis since 2019 and that it was due to a lack of any alternative placement that could meet Y’s needs that led to the placement, not a lack of care planning. The IO partially upheld the complaint, the AO agreed with the outcome.
46. Ms X told the stage three panel her complaint was about matters since Y had moved to P1 and the IO concentrated on matters leading up to Y being placed there. The panel upheld the complaint and said the Council had a duty to provide an appropriate placement for Y, and had not done so as they remained in an unregistered placement.
47. The Council wrote to Ms X and said it disagreed with the stage three panel and partially upheld the complaint. It said Y remained in an unregistered placement due to a lack of suitable provision nationally, and the challenges the Council had experienced in making P2 suitable for Y. It said its planning had been appropriate and timely and so it partially upheld the complaint.
48. Complaint two. Ms X complained a lack of leadership and project management had significantly contributed to the drift and delay in Y remaining in an unregistered placement. The IO’s interviews with relevant Council Officers referred to issues with the impact of the Covid -19 pandemic, funding, legal arrangements and contracts variously causing delay in the process. The IO referred to two pieces of documentary evidence which were a meeting discussing the possibility of using P2 in April 2020 and an email confirming the lease had been agreed in March 2023. The IO’s chronology did not refer to any evidence of action between those dates. The IO found there was drift and delay but it was not due to a lack of leadership and project management and did not uphold the complaint. The AO agreed and did not uphold the complaint.
49. Ms X told the stage three panel that meetings did not demonstrate the Council had an active approach to seeking and securing appropriate accommodation for Y as an extremely vulnerable child. The stage three panel asked the IO about the lack of records between April 2020 and March 2023. The IO explained there were lots of records, but they only included the relevant points to keep the chronology short. The panel partially upheld the complaint. It said the Council was doing all it could, however there was a lack of a lead professional to promote and support Y’s needs.
50. The Council’s final response to Ms X said it disagreed with the stage three panel, and did not uphold the complaint. The Council said the stage two investigation evidenced project management and leadership was in place, there were regular meetings and the Council did all it could.
51. Complaint three. Ms X complained the Council had not maintained oversight of the provider it commissioned to care for Y, allowing it to continue with no accountability despite several incidents of alleged abuse against Y by its staff. The IO asked to speak with Senior Officer 1 but they did not respond and so they could not establish who had commissioned the care provider. The IO found there was no evidence of appropriate and adequate oversight of the provider and partially upheld the complaint. The AO agreed with the outcome.
52. Ms X told the stage three panel the IO should have ensured Senior Officer 1 engaged with the investigation and the decision to partially uphold the complaint was not in line with the finding there was no evidence of oversight of the care provider. The stage three panel agreed and upheld the complaint. The panel also commented it was disappointed Senior Officer 1 had not responded to the IO.
53. The Council wrote to Ms X and said it agreed with the stage three panel and upheld the complaint. The Council said it apologised Senior Officer 1 had not responded and it would investigate why it had happened and remind officers they should make themselves available for statutory investigations.
54. Complaint four. Ms X complained Y had become isolated and institutionalized and did not have access to peers or the community. The IO found that everyone interviewed agreed Y had become isolated and institutionalized and had not interacted with peers since the end of 2019 and upheld the complaint. The AO agreed with the outcome. This element of complaint was not considered further.
55. Complaint five. Ms X complained the Council’s lack of planning, continuity and consistency meant Y’s human rights, disability rights and rights as a child in care were being violated on a daily basis. The IO found that many of the people interviewed agreed Y did not have the full rights of a child, due to the adult placement, and therefore it could be said that was a daily violation of their rights. The IO said there was no evidence this was due to a lack of planning, continuity and consistency and the Council had tried to provide continuity since Y had moved to P1. The IO did not uphold the complaint. The AO agreed and did not uphold the complaint.
56. Ms X told the panel not upholding the complaint did not logically follow from the IO’s finding that there was daily violation of Y’s human rights. The panel considered the IO’s report, Ms X’s comments and medical evidence in relation to Y’s case and found there was insufficient evidence Y’s rights were being violated on a daily basis, and it was not due to a lack of planning, continuity and consistency. It did not uphold the complaint.
57. The Council wrote to Ms X and agreed with the stage three panel and did not uphold the complaint.
58. Complaint six. Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure Y had access to education that met their needs and gave opportunity to develop to their full potential in line with its role as corporate parent. The IO did not uphold the complaint as they found the Council had made reasonable and appropriate attempts to ensure Y had access to a flexible and monitored education package that met their current needs. The AO agreed and did not uphold the complaint.
59. Ms X told the Panel Y’s education was not appropriate and there was nothing in their current EHC Plan that would develop their potential, the outcomes of their Plan had not changed between 2018 and 2022 and there was no evidence Y was challenged or motivated. The panel upheld the complaint. It said the Council failed as Y’s corporate parent to review Y’s EHC Plan which was central to ensure the best possible educational opportunity for a young person with special educational needs.
60. The Council wrote to Ms X and said it disagreed with the stage three panel and partially upheld the complaint. It said it should have reviewed Y’s EHC Plan on an annual basis, in line with statutory requirements, but it had not failed to ensure Y had access to education that met their needs and the opportunity to develop to their full potential because it had provided a flexible and bespoke package of education throughout.
61. Complaint seven. Ms X complained that until very recently there was no legal framework in place to ensure restrictions and restraints were being carried out lawfully, in contradiction to Y’s basic human rights. The IO did not uphold this complaint as the records showed the Council had made a DOLs application after Y moved to P1, which was later revoked by a different judge. The IO said the Council had sought legal advice and followed a decision made by a judge. The AO agreed and did not uphold the complaint.
62. The stage three panel said there was insufficient evidence for it to make a finding.
63. The Council told Ms X it agreed with the stage three panel it could not make a decision as it could not decide if a court’s decision was correct or not.
64. Complaint eight. Ms X complained the Council failed to meet its statutory and obligatory duties to Y as a child in care. She said the Council’s drift and delay had caused a lack of stability and quality of life for Y which was detrimentally affecting their mental and emotional wellbeing. The IO found the Council failed to meet its statutory duty to Y as they remained in an unregistered placement, but it had not failed in any other aspect of Y’s care. The IO partially upheld the complaint. The AO agreed with the finding and said that although P1 was an unregistered placement and so it had failed in its statutory duties, it had completed statutory visits, assessments and reviews within the statutory timescales.
65. Ms X told the panel regardless of visits in timescales Y had experienced isolation, segregation, lack of friends, limited interaction with anyone other than paid staff and insufficient education. She said the investigation had a too narrow view on Y’s lived experience. The panel partially upheld the complaint as it found the Council failed to meet its duties while Y remained at P1. The panel noted its disappointment there continued to be delays in moving Y from P1.
66. The Council wrote to Ms X and said it fully upheld the complaint. It said it worked hard to provide a home and care that could meet Y’s needs, in the absence of a registered provision. It said P1 was not suitable and had been a ‘least worst’ temporary arrangement that had gone on for too long.

Outcomes and recommendations

67. Stage two recommendations. At stage two the IO considered Ms X’s desired outcomes for an apology on Y’s file, financial compensation and a date for a move to a registered children’s home and agreed with them. They recognised proper transition planning was essential and that Ms X should be fully involved in the planning process for the move to P2 but recognised it may not be possible to provide an exact date for the move. The IO stated they were not in a position to recommend financial restitution. The IO also recommended the Council continued to look for safe and practical ways to involve Y with their peers and the community and to consider facilities at P2 to challenge Y in their education and help them reach their full potential.
68. Adjudication. The Adjudicating Officer wrote to Ms X in February 2024 with its adjudication letter. The AO said financial restitution was not appropriate or proportionate in the situation, but did not explain why. The letter said the Council was working hard to move Y to P2 as soon as possible and it hoped it would be March 2024. The letter said senior managers had operational oversight. The Council said it agreed to look for ways to involve Y with their peers and the community and consider the educational facilities at P2.
69. Stage three recommendations. The stage three panel agreed with all the recommendations made at stage two and made further recommendations to the Council. It recommended the Council:
• Reviewed Y’s EHC Plan in line with the guidance and considered if their education was sufficiently challenging.
• Provided a further written and sincere apology to Y to include the further upheld complaints.
• Consider a symbolic payment for distress and uncertainty in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
• Provide a lead professional to ensure a collaborative approach to Y’s case.
• Provide a realistic date for the move to P2; and
• Commit to provide clear and timely communication to Ms X.
70. The panel had asked the AO why financial recompense was not appropriate. The AO said they could not see what purpose it would serve; it would be tokenistic and an apology and acknowledgement about its faults would be better.
71. The stage three panel discussed the wording of the statement of complaint, and set out that had it been written differently some complaints would have been fully upheld. It said the way the complaints had been worded caused difficulty in separating the matters considered.
72. Council’s response to recommendations. In its final response letter to Ms X in May 2024 the Council:
• Said the Virtual School Head and the EHC Plan Case Worker would ensure Y’s education was sufficiently challenging in line with their abilities and age.
• Offered £500 payment to Y for any distress caused by the upheld complaints.
• Set out the lead professional for Y’s case was their social worker.
• Said it was unable to control the registration of P2 with Ofsted and so could not guarantee, but anticipated Y would move before the end of June 2024.
• Apologised for the length of time it had taken to provide an appropriate service and for all the fully and partially upheld complaints.

Additional information

73. The Council wrote an apology letter to Y in April 2024 after the stage two investigation. The Council said it was ‘sorry.. for all [Y had] been through’. The Council was not clear on the faults it had identified in its own actions or what the impact had been on Y.
74. In April 2025 the Council confirmed Y remained in P1. It said its provider had submitted an application to register the home with Ofsted in March 2025 and was waiting for the outcome.
75. The Council held an annual review meeting for Y’s EHC Plan in June 2024. The record of the meeting showed the VSH and Y’s IRO did not attend the review meeting. The Council issued an amended EHC Plan in July 2024, the outcomes sought by the end of the current key stage were amended to be less challenging. The next PEP meeting in October 2024 referred to the outcomes listed in the previous EHC Plan, not the current one. It recorded Y was making below expected progress and not achieving their targets. It set a new target of Y being able to access a computer and a communication board once they moved to P2, of holding a pen and engaging in a practical activity. The Council said it would complete a further annual review in April 2025.
76. The Council stated Senior Officer 1 was unaware of the request to participate in the investigation due to an administrative error with their emails. It reminded officers of their responsibility to participate in statutory investigations. Senior Officer 1 later confirmed to Ms X in a letter the care provider discussed in the stage two investigation was commissioned by the Council.

Others affected

77. Between March 2024 and January 2025 there were 25 children and young people looked after by the Council in unregistered placements.
78. The Council said it is in the process of developing four children’s homes that will provide additional placements for looked after children. It had completed applications for registration to Ofsted for two, one was undergoing building works and it was currently searching for a fourth property to purchase and develop. This is an appropriate action to improve the Council’s service and so I have not made any additional service improvement recommendation on this point.

Findings

79. The Council considered Ms X’s complaints through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Ms X raised her concerns about the adequacy of the stage two investigation to the stage three panel. The stage three panel’s purpose is to consider the adequacy of the stage two investigation.
80. The stage three panel considered the stage two investigation, including the IP’s view on the independence and integrity of the investigation. It gathered the relevant further information it required. It upheld three previously not upheld or partially upheld complaints, and partially upheld two previously not upheld complaints. It could not make a finding on the complaint about the DOLs as it was a matter decided by a court, which was in line with the guidance. There was no fault in how the stage three panel considered Ms X’s complaint. I am therefore satisfied the overall findings of the children’s statutory complaints procedure can be relied upon. I have not investigated the substantive points further.
81. The statutory guidance sets out the Council’s stage two adjudication should have made a decision on each point of complaint after it received the Investigating Officer’s report. Following the stage three panel’s report, the legislation only allows for the Council to respond to the panel’s recommendations. Neither the legislation nor guidance allow for the Council to overturn the panel’s findings, even where it sets out the reasons it does not agree. The Council’s action in doing so was fault and caused Y an injustice by delaying the final outcome of the complaint. There was no injustice caused to Y by the Council fully upholding a complaint the panel partially upheld.
82. Y was a child at the start of the period of complaint and is now a teenager. As a looked after child with special educational needs Y was, and remains, one of the most vulnerable members of society and the Council had duties under legislation to appropriately care for Y in a registered establishment, keep them safe and promote their educational achievement. Through the statutory complaints procedure the full investigation found the Council was at fault as it:
• Had not provided Y with an appropriate placement from the end of 2019 until May 2024, which was caused in part by a lack of a lead professional for Y’s case;
• Had not maintained appropriate and adequate oversight of the care provider which resulted in no accountability despite several incidents of alleged abuse against Y;
• Failed to meet its corporate responsibility to Y to promote their educational achievements as it had not reviewed Y’s EHC Plan in line with the legislation and failed to ensure Y had access to education that met their needs;
• Failed to meet its statutory and obligatory duties to Y as a child in its care; and
• Caused Y to become isolated, institutionalised and not interact with their peers for four and a half years.
83. The Council offered £500 to remedy the injustice caused to Y. Ms X explained the impact on Y was a significant detriment to Y’s mental and emotional wellbeing and to their education and development. The investigation found Y had become isolated and institutionalised. The remedy is insufficient for the injustice caused to Y over a period of four and a half years by the faults identified through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. I have made a suitable recommendation below.
84. The apology letter the Council wrote to Y following the stage two investigation did provide an apology. However, it did not take responsibility for the Council’s fault identified or the injustice this caused to Y. That was fault. I have made a further recommendation about an appropriate apology.
85. The Council stated the Virtual School Head (VSH) would be involved in reviewing Y’s EHC Plan to ensure that Y’s education was sufficiently challenging. The evidence shows the VSH was not involved in the subsequent EHC Plan review or PEP review and the Council made Y’s outcomes less challenging. The failure to complete the agreed action was fault. However, I cannot say what injustice this caused Y, as I cannot know what the outcome would have been had the Council acted without fault. Y’s EHC Plan is due for a further review imminently and I have made a relevant recommendation below.
86. Senior Officer 1 had overall responsibility for commissioning Y’s care package. They did not participate in the statutory investigation due to an administrative error, which was fault. It meant the stage two investigation was unable to establish if the Council commissioned the care provider which meant it only partially upheld complaint three. The stage three panel could have requested Senior Officer 1 attend the panel meeting. The panel fully upheld complaint three without the input of Senior Officer 1 and so their attendance was not necessary. As complaint three was fully upheld at stage three Y was not caused an additional injustice. The Council had since confirmed it did commission the care provider and had taken appropriate action to improve its service and so I have not made a further recommendation on that point.
87. At the time of this investigation Y remained in P1, the unregistered provision. The Council previously accepted the placement was unacceptable and was the ‘least-worst’ option and so this was fault. The Council’s planning for Y’s education refers to resources and facilities to meet their objectives when Y moves to P2. Y therefore continued to be caused injustice for a further year after the stage three panel decision. I have made an appropriate recommendation to remedy this ongoing injustice below.

Back to top

Agreed action

88. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
• Provide the further apology letter to Y recommended by the stage three panel to cover all of the upheld and partially upheld complaints it identified and the injustice this caused to Y. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
• Meet with Ms X, Y’s parent, Y’s IRO and social worker and identify the best place for a remedy payment to be made to and decide how it will be managed in Y’s best interest. The Council will inform of us of that arrangement.
• Make a payment to Y of £8000 for the injustice caused to them by the Council’s faults identified through the children’s statutory complaint procedure between December 2019 and May 2024.
• Make a further payment to Y of £1000 for the ongoing injustice caused to them by the Council’s continued failure to provide a registered placement from May 2024 when the stage three panel made its findings to the date of this decision.
• Continue to make payments to Y of £200 per month, from the date of this decision, until Y is provided with an appropriate registered setting.
• Conduct the EHC Plan review in line with the action agreed following the stage three panel and inform Ms X of the right to appeal the subsequent EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal if she and/or Y’s parent disagrees with the content.
89. Within three months of this decision the Council will:
• Remind officers responding to complaints at stage three of the statutory complaints procedure that the Council can deviate from the recommendations made by the stage three panel with its reasons, but cannot overturn the stage three panel’s outcomes on the complaint.
• Consider this decision at a relevant scrutiny committee and consider if there are any further actions the Council intends to take in relation to Y’s case or its children’s home sufficiency.
90. The Council will provide us with an update on the progress it has made with the development of the four properties as children’s homes in 6 and 12 months’ time.
91. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

92. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman