Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Miss Y about the way the Council dealt with her care and that of her child. The Council was at fault for delaying in completing some of the recommendations from the Children Act complaints procedure. This caused Miss Y frustration and uncertainty. The Council should apologise, make a payment and send us an action plan detailing how it will complete the recommendations.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of Miss Y that the Council:
1. allowed her to be in an unregulated kinship placement for three years, living in an overcrowded house with a new baby;
2. poorly completed her pathway plan and failed to update this to reflect her changing circumstances;
3. failed to provide proper information about finances for her, her child and her kinship carer;
4. failed to cover the equivalent of benefits that she could not claim due to being a looked after child;
5. failed to support her during child protection and child in need meetings; and
6. failed to provide a sufficient financial remedy for the distress caused by its faults.
2. Ms X says Miss Y has been financially impacted as she could not claim certain benefits. She also says this has caused Miss Y significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated Ms X’s substantive complaint about how the Council dealt with Miss Y’s care. I have explained why in paragraph 29.

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

Legislation and guidance

Statutory complaints procedures

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.
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. 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.
14. 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.
15. However, we may 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.

Pathway planning

16. The Children Act 1989 places duties on councils to provide ongoing support for children leaving care. These duties continue until they reach age 21. If the council is helping them with education and training, the duty continues until age 25 or to the end of the agreed training (which can take them beyond their 25th birthday). 
17. Councils should appoint each care leaver with a personal adviser, and each care leaver should have a pathway plan. The personal adviser will act as a focal point to ensure the care leaver is provided with the right kind of support. The pathway plan should be based on a thorough assessment of the person’s needs. Plans should include specific actions and deadlines detailing who will take what action and when. They should be reviewed at least every six months by a social worker. 

Background

18. Miss Y is a young person that has been in care. She has a child of her own.
19. Miss Y previously complained to the Ombudsman about the Council delaying this investigation at stage two of the complaint procedure. In April 2024, we found fault with the Council’s delay. Following this, the Council completed a stage two investigation and made a payment to recognise the injustice caused to Miss Y by the delay.

What happened?

20. Following the Council completing a stage two investigation, the adjudicating officer wrote to Miss Y. They were satisfied with the independent investigation and noted the IO had addressed and responded to all eight complaint points. The Council upheld all but one of these complaint points. It said it had failed to:

• complete care planning for Miss Y, who was pregnant at the time;
• ensure Miss Y’s pathway plan was in place by November 2022;
• support Miss Y at important meetings;
• support Miss Y to make important decisions about the care and accommodation for her and her child;
• provide appropriate financial information to Miss Y;
• provide appropriate social work support; and
• make an application for criminal injuries compensation (CICA).

21. The Council made several recommendations that included both personal remedies for Miss Y and service improvements.
22. Miss Y was unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation and so her representative asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage three. Specifically, they said:

• Miss Y was satisfied with the investigation and that all points, apart from one were upheld but felt the Council kept apologising without improving matters,
• Stage two failed to acknowledge the poor quality of her pathway plan and offered no commitment to ensuring it was changed,
• Social workers were still failing to attend meetings related to Miss Y’s child, despite this being a recommendation at stage one and two,
• There were still issues with finances and what benefits Miss Y was entitled to claim,
• The Council had still not made the CICA application.

23. The Council considered Miss Y’s complaint at stage three in June 2024. The panel agreed with the stage two findings and made seven further recommendations which included:

• Allocating a leaving care personal assistant to develop an effective pathway plan for Miss Y,
• Service improvements related to improving the quality and timeliness of pathway plans;
• Exploring finances with Miss Y,
• Providing Miss Y with a copy of its kinship carer policy,
• Seeking legal advice on behalf of Miss Y related to a CICA application, and
• Making service improvements relating to the attendance of social workers at meetings.

24. The Council also apologised to Miss Y for its failings and offered a financial remedy of £500 to recognise the injustice caused by these.
25. In March 2025, Ms X told me that the Council had still not sent Miss Y a copy of her pathway plan and not supported her with the CICA application.

Analysis

26. If a complaint has already been through the second stage of the statutory complaint procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation.
27. Because of this, we will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed.
28. I have considered the documents from Ms X’s complaint, and I note that:
• each part of the complaint was considered at stage two and addressed by the Council;
• the independent investigation report refers to relevant procedure and case records. These case records support the investigator’s findings;
• Miss Y said she was happy with the actual investigation; and
• all but one of Miss Y’s complaint points were upheld, and Ms X has not complained to us about the complaint point that was not upheld.
29. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said, if I were to reinvestigate the complaint. It is also unlikely this would lead to a substantially different outcome for Miss Y. So, a reinvestigation would be of no benefit to her.
30. I have, however, considered whether the Council’s remedies properly recognise the injustice it has caused.
31. The Council has apologised and implemented service improvements related to:

• pathway plans;
• social workers attending meetings;
• introduced systems for providing information to service users to help them make informed decisions; and
• developed new financial systems.

32. The Council did this without delay, which I welcome.
33. But, I am concerned that some of the recommendations have been delayed or not as yet completed.
34. One of the Council’s recommendations was for the Council to develop an effective pathway plan with Miss Y. Despite the fact the Council should have already completed this by November 2022, the Council told me it did not complete this until May 2024. Ms X also told me in March 2025, that the Council had still not sent a copy of this pathway plan to Miss Y. This considerable delay is fault which has caused Miss Y further uncertainty about her future.
35. In addition, the Council’s stage three response in June 2024, said it would support Miss Y to make a universal credit claim and explore any benefit exemptions she may have had in the past. I welcome that Miss Y is now receiving universal credit, but the Council failed to explore any exemptions she may have had in the past. The Council told me that it would follow this up with Miss Y in April 2025, but this is a considerable delay, which is fault, and has caused Miss Y further frustration and uncertainty.
36. Despite me asking the Council to provide evidence of its completed recommendations. The Council did not provide any evidence it had given Miss Y a copy of its kinship policy. But, even if the Council has not sent Miss Y a copy of this, it is unlikely this has caused her a significant injustice as this policy is available online should Miss Y or her representatives wish to have a copy.
37. I welcome the Council obtaining legal advice about Miss Y making a CICA application but there is no evidence that the Council has supported Miss Y to make this application. This is a considerable delay in completing this recommendation, which is fault and has caused Miss Y further frustration.
38. In reviewing the remedies, I have considered our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice.
39. This provides guidance about symbolic payments. The guidance says, when, having already considered each of the previous remedy options, we identify there is still significant unremedied injustice arising from the fault(s), we can ask an organisation to make a payment to symbolise and acknowledge the distress or difficulties the person has been put through because of what it did wrong.   
40. The Council is at fault for the areas it accepted during the statutory complaint process. In addition to this I have found fault with the actions related to the recommendations. I will suggest a further financial remedy to recognise the further injustice this caused Miss Y.

Back to top

Action

41. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Miss Y for the identified faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology; and
• make a payment of £400 to Miss Y. This is to recognise the uncertainty and frustration caused by the Council’s delay in completing some of the recommendations.
42. Within eight weeks of our final decision, the Council should send us an action plan which sets out:

• evidence of the completed pathway plan process, including evidence Miss Y has commented and agreed to the plan;
• how it will support Miss Y to make a CICA application; and
• how it will explore any benefit exemptions Miss Y may have had in the past and what actions are needed, if any, to correct this.

43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman