Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ matters. There are no justifiable reasons to reinvestigate a Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure investigation. And the Council has agreed a proportionate way to remedy its delay in that process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about Children Services’ actions and the way it replied to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:
• the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met.

• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council in March 2024 about Children Services’ actions from being a young child until up to around five years ago. Mr X had been a looked after child. He complained about how the Council, protected him and acted on his case as a looked after child and after he left care. The Council replied in its Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.
7. 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.
8. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Mr X complained in March 2024 and the Stage Three concluded in June 2025.
15. The Council largely did not uphold the complaint. It recommended some assessments and a payment of £200 for upset.

Analysis

16. We will not investigate the same issues Mr X complained to the Council about. The events are more than 12 months old. Mr X has reasons for complaining late but they are not sufficient to overcome the problems with looking at a complaint which stems back 25 years. And there are no reasons why we should re investigate the Council’s complaint response.
17. The Council did not meet the time limits for completing the statutory complaint reply. It has now agreed to pay Mr X £200 for these delays (additional to the £200 for upset). Our investigation could not achieve significantly more.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has agreed a proportionate remedy for the complaint delays and we could not achieve significantly more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman