Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his complaints about his care under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: properly consider all of Mr X’s concerns and time limits for accepting them; and convene a panel review. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to: apologise; make a payment to reflect the upset and uncertainty caused; properly consider the concerns not yet investigated, decide whether these should now be investigated under the statutory procedure and if so, a way forward; and if not, convene a panel review now for the current stage two investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s complaint has been brought to us by his advocate, Mrs Y.
2. Mr X complains the Council has failed to respond properly and effectively to his complaints about issues relating to his care by the Council while he was a child in its care. He says it has failed to:

• properly consider and investigate all of his concerns; and
• complete the children’s statutory complaints procedure by convening and holding a Review Panel.

3. He wants the Council to take action to properly consider and respond to all of his concerns and complete the statutory complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X, Mrs Y and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X, Mrs Y 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

What should have happened

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. The three stages are:

• local resolution (first stage);
• if a complainant is not happy with the 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 (second stage); and
• 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 (third stage).

Statutory Guidance ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’

10. The guidance says, about the time limit for making a complaint:

• councils do not need to consider complaints made more than one year after the grounds to make the representations arose. In these cases, councils should tell the complainant their complaint cannot be considered, and the reasons why;
• decisions about this need to be made on a case by case basis. There should generally be a presumption in favour of accepting the complaint unless there is good reason against it;
• the time limit can be extended at a council’s discretion if it is still possible to consider the representations effectively and efficiently;
• councils may also wish to consider such complaints if it is unreasonable to expect the complainant to have made the complaint earlier. For example; where the child was not able to make the complaint; or did not feel confident in bringing it forward within the year time limit; and
• possible grounds for accepting a complaint made after one year include: vulnerability; benefit to the complainant in proceeding; sufficient access to information to enable a fair investigation; and that action should be taken in the light of human rights-based law.

11. And that the purpose of Review Panels includes:

• listening to all parties;
• considering the adequacy of the stage two investigation;
• obtaining any further information and advice that may help resolve the complaint to all parties’ satisfaction;
• focusing on achieving resolution for the complainant by addressing their clearly defined complaints and desired outcomes;
• identifying any consequent injustice where complaints are upheld and recommending appropriate redress; and
• recommending service improvements.

12. As a general rule, the Review Panel should not re-investigate complaints nor consider any substantively new complaints not considered at stage two.

Our role

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. 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.
15. 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. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

Complaints about the Council’s Children’s Services

16. The Council’s procedure for complaints about Children’s Services refers to the statutory guidance. It says, about the stage three procedure:
1. if the complainant is dissatisfied with the stage two response they can request further consideration of the complaint by a review panel. Further consideration of the complaint can include, in a limited number of cases, early referral to the LGO or Alternative Dispute Resolution. Otherwise, the complainant retains the right to proceed to a Review Panel;
2. after the conclusion of stage two, where the Complaints Manager considers the Review Panel would not produce a demonstrably different outcome, they should discuss the possibility of early referral to the Ombudsman with the complainant;
3. Before proceeding with this option, the stage two investigation should have delivered:

• a very robust report;
• a complete adjudication; and
• an outcome where all complaints (or all significant complaints about service delivery) have been upheld.
4. Where this is the case, and the complainant agrees, the Complaints Manager can approach the Ombudsman and ask him to consider the complaint without first going through the Review Panel.

What happened

17. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

18. Mr X was a looked after child in the Council’s care from October 2018 until he turned 18 at the end of March 2024.
19. In June 2022, with the support of his advocate, Mrs Y, Mr X complained to the Council about aspects of his care. Following a meeting with Mrs Y and Mr X, the Council provided its response addressing the concerns raised.

May to July 2024: Mr X’s further complaint about his care

20. In May, Mrs Y, on Mr X’s behalf, made a further complaint to the Council about issues relating to his care by Children’s Services from 2018.
21. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint and asked for it to be escalated to stage two of the statutory procedure.
22. The Council appointed an IO and IP to investigate the complaint.

January to March 2025: The stage two investigation

23. The statement of complaint for the stage two investigation was agreed in January.
24. Mr X said in this statement he believed the Council had failed in its duties as corporate parent. There were many occasions in his life, since he came into care in 2018, where the care provided was inadequate. His wellbeing, mental health and education have suffered as a result. The statement set out details of Mr X’s 10 complaints.
25. Before the investigation started the Council told Mr X and Mrs Y:

• the re-drafted stage two complaint deviated a great deal from the original stage one. The IO and IP might be limited as to what they reasonably felt they could investigate as they can only look at the points considered by the Council at stage one; and
• much of the newly drafted statement appeared to be historic and out of scope of the complaints process which says councils do not need to consider complaints made more than one year after the grounds to make representations arose.

26. The IO completed their investigation and issued the report on their findings in February 2025. The IO said:

• they and the IP had considered the statutory guidance and the following extract: Local authorities do not need to consider complaints made more than one year after the grounds to make the representation arose;
• they and the IP considered much of the evidence provided was historical and outside the scope of a stage two investigation, apart from complaints 4 and 5; and
• complaint 4 was partially upheld and complaint 5 was not upheld.

March 2025: The Council’s response to the stage two investigation

27. The Council sent its formal adjudication response to the stage two investigation to Mr X and Mrs Y in March 2025. It added some comment about the issues it, the IO and IP had said were outside the scope of the stage two investigation. It said it was too late to formally to investigate these issues now.
28. The Council also said the stage three panel review would not look at these historic complaints or add value to the complaints investigated at stage two. It recommended Mr X come to the Ombudsman if not satisfied with the stage two outcome because a panel review would not change the outcome or reinvestigate the issues.

April to July 2025: complaint to us

29. Mr X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation. Mrs Y brought the complaint to us on his behalf.
30. We invited the Council to remedy the complaint by immediately arranging a stage three panel hearing.
31. The Council declined the invitation. It told us it agreed with the IO’s assessment about historical issues and felt the panel review would not re-investigate the complaint or new representations.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The Council’s response to Mr X’s 2024 complaints

32. The Council said most of the stage two statement of complaint issues should not be investigated because they had not been raised at stage one.
33. It, and the IO, also decided these issues should not be investigated because they were about events which took place more than a year before Mr X complained about these matters in 2024.
34. But I have not seen any evidence the Council considered all the factors set out in the statutory guidance about time limits for accepting complaints. These included the presumption in favour of accepting a complaint unless there was good reason against it; and whether it was unreasonable to expect Mr X to have made the complaint earlier, at a time when he was still a child in the Council’s care.
35. I have not seen any evidence the Council properly considered whether it should accept and investigate the additional issues as part of the stage one procedure, before starting the stage two investigation.
36. 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.
37. In my view the Council has failed to properly consider all the concerns Mr X wanted to raise through the statutory procedure and whether, taking into account all the factors about time limits set out in the guidance, these concerns should be investigated. This was fault.

Failure to arrange the stage 3 panel review

38. In my view it was fault by the Council not to convene and hold the stage three Review Panel in accordance with the statutory procedure.
39. The Council is not entitled to refuse to complete the statutory procedure. Mr X has the right to have his complaint considered by the Review Panel, if he requests this, as the final stage of the procedure.
40. This was not a situation where an early referral to us was appropriate. Most of Mr X’s complaints were not upheld by the IO – because the IO decided they should not be investigated. And Mr X made it clear to the Council he was unhappy about the outcome of the stage two investigation.

Impact of these faults

41. The Council’s failures to: properly consider all of Mr X’s concerns and time limits for accepting them; and convene a Panel Review has caused Mr X injustice. Because of this failure, Mr X has not yet had access to an independent, thorough, and prompt response to all of his concerns in accordance with the statutory guidance on the statutory procedure, or the opportunity to have his concerns considered by the Panel Review.
42. These failures have also caused Mr X upset and uncertainty about the outcome of his complaints.

Back to top

Action

43. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for failing to: properly consider all of his concerns and time limits for accepting them; and convene a Panel Review. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology:
2. pay Mr X £100 to reflect the upset, and uncertainty caused by its failures. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies;
3. properly consider complaints 1-3 and 6-10 set out in the current stage two statement of complaint and decide whether it should now:

• accept and investigate these complaints after having considered all the factors set out in the statutory guidance about time limits; and
• if it does accept any of these complaints, respond to these complaints in accordance with the first stage of the statutory complaints procedure.
4. provide Mr X with reasons for its decisions in c);
5. if it decides to accept any of complaints 1-3 and 6-10, propose a way forward for the investigation of these complaints under the statutory procedure, including agreeing with Mr X whether convening a Penal Review for the current investigation should be adjourned until stages one and two of the further investigation have been completed; and
6. if it decides not to accept and investigate any of complaints 1-3 and 6-10, confirm it will convene and hold a Panel Review for the current stage two investigation if this is requested by Mr X. It should then arrange for this to take place at the earliest possible date.

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

Back to top

Decision

45. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman