Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Miss Y that the Council failed in its responsibilities towards Miss Y. The Council was at fault for failing to make findings at stage three on all complaint points, delaying in completing the statutory complaints process and delaying in completing all of the recommendations. This caused Mrs X and Miss Y distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, make payments and provide an action plan to complete recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains on behalf of her family member, Miss Y, that the Council failed in its responsibilities towards Miss Y. She says the Council:
1. allowed safeguarding failures;
2. mismanaged Miss Y’s inheritance;
3. failed to allow statutory visits;
4. wrongly refused to allow contact with family members;
5. failed to provide bereavement support;
6. delayed in responding to a subject access request;
7. failed to provide transition support; and
8. refused to implement recommendations from the complaint process.
2. Mrs X said this has caused her significant distress in having to chase these matters. She also says that Miss Y was denied timely access to her inheritance, delayed life opportunities and financial independence. She also says the failures of the Council caused Miss Y significant distress as a child.

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(1), 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaint that the Council refused to implement recommendations from the complaint process.
8. I have not investigated Mrs X’s substantive complaints. I have explained why in paragraph 36.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mrs 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 - the three-stage process

11. 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.
12. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.

Our investigation

17. 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.
18. 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.

Looked after children

19. A child who has been in the care of their local authority for more than 24 hours is known as a looked after child.

Getting the Best from Complaints

20. The guidance says that if the Council deviates from any of the panel’s recommendations, it should demonstrate its reasoning for its response.

What happened?

21. Mrs X complained to the Council about matters relating to the care and support of Y, who was previously a looked after child. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage one complaint, Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two of the statutory procedure in August 2023.
22. The Council accepted Mrs X’s complaint at stage two and commissioned an IO to investigate these matters in July 2024.
23. The Council issued its adjudication response in early October. Out of the 14 complaints that Mrs X made, six of the complaints were not upheld, six were partially upheld and two of the complaints were fully upheld. The Council agreed with all the stage two findings and recommendations.
24. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage two investigation and asked the Council to escalate the complaint to stage three a couple of weeks later.
25. The Council held the review panel in early May 2025. At this meeting, the panel raised several concerns about the stage two investigation, including:

• the IO failing to attempt to contact two members of staff that had left the Council;
• the IO failing to consider interviewing Miss Y’s solicitor;
• the IO failing to sufficiently challenge some of the information held within the documents which left Mrs X and Miss Y feeling that the investigation hadn’t covered all their complaint points.

26. The stage three panel upheld most of Mrs X and Miss Y’s complaints, including those not upheld at stage two. The panel’s findings included that the Council had:

• failed to properly manage Miss Y’s inheritance on her behalf when her father died;
• failed to tell Miss Y’s half-siblings about her existence and promote contact with them when they were notified;
• failed to effectively promote contact between Miss Y and other family members;
• failed to respond adequately to concerns about Miss Y’s foster carer and the way Miss Y was treated;
• failed to provide adequate bereavement support;
• failed to consider all options for carers when Miss Y’s foster care placement broke down;
• failed to respond properly to Miss Y’s subject access request;
• failed to regularly review Miss Y’s foster care placement; and
• delayed in responding to requests for holidays with her family.

27. The panel did not specifically note a finding for two other of the complaint points in the stage three panel notes.
28. The panel also made 15 recommendations, which included service improvements and personal remedies. These included that the Council should:

• produce a policy and procedure for dealing with the probate of estates in which looked after children have an interest.
• review its practice to ensure that information about siblings and wider family and the options available to contact them are discussed with looked after children and their advocates.
• ensure that transition planning for looked after children considers the information held on the child/young person’s family.
• review its practice in relation to safeguarding looked after children who are placed with foster parents where there is a significant change in the composition of that family.
• review its practice where a looked after child or young person experiences a bereavement to ensure that the child or young person is engaged so that they can consider the options open to them for support.
• review the connected person pay rates, check they are fair and based on current policy,

29. The personal remedies recommended included that the Council should:

• apologise to Mrs X and Miss Y for the identified failings.
• provide a timeline and action plan for resolving issues with Miss Y’s inheritance and ensure that Miss Y does not suffer any financial loss related to solicitors fees and interest.
• pay Miss Y £600 which she can spend on a bereavement support provider of her choice.
• make a payment of £1000 in recognition of the time and trouble Miss Y experienced due to the significant delay in the complaints process and the response of the Council.
• make a payment of £500 for the distress Miss Y experienced due to the failings of the Council.

30. The Council wrote to Mrs X in early June accepting all the findings from the stage three panel. In addition, it also offered to make a payment of £500 to Mrs X for the time and trouble in making the complaint and the delays in the process.
31. The Council also accepted all the recommendations apart from one, this being that it should review the connected person pay rates and explain to Mrs X and Miss Y what they will put in place. The Council explained this was because connected persons receive the same level of allowances as all other foster carers and this is maintained through the annual review process.

Findings

The procedure

32. If a complaint has already been through the second stage of the Children Act complaints procedure, this means they have already had access to an independent investigation. Consequently, we will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed.
33. I have considered the documents from Mrs X’s complaint, and I note that:
• The independent investigation report and stage three panel notes refer to relevant procedure and case records. These case records support the findings.
• The Council considered Mrs X’s desired outcomes and explained its view about these.
• Most of Mrs X’s complaints were upheld.
34. But I also note that the stage three panel raised several concerns about the stage two investigation. I have considered the points raised but I will not reinvestigate these matters further. This is because the stage three panel upheld the majority of Mrs X and Miss Y’s complaint and so further investigation would unlikely lead to a different outcome.
35. I also note that the panel failed to make formal findings on two of the complaint points. This is fault, which caused Mrs X and Miss Y uncertainty about the outcome of these. But, I will not recommend a reinvestigation or reinvestigate these matters myself, because the wording within the stage three panel notes and the recommendations made suggest that these complaints were both also upheld.
36. 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 that this would lead to a different outcome for Mrs X and Miss Y. So, a reinvestigation would be of no benefit to her.

Timeframes

37. While I am happy the remainder of the investigation was completed in line with guidance, I am concerned about the time it took the Council to complete the procedure. We expect a council to complete stage two within 65 working days, but it took the Council 14 months.
38. There were also delays with stage three, which took the Council around eight months to complete, whereas we expect a council to complete stage three within 50 working days.
39. These considerable delays are fault which caused Mrs X and Miss Y uncertainty and frustration and required Mrs X to spend a considerable amount of time advocating on Miss Y’s behalf But, I note that the Council has already apologised for this and offered to make a payment of £1000 to Miss Y and £500 to Mrs X. This exceeds the amount that we would recommend for this type of fault, and so I will not make any further recommendations. I will ask the Council to reoffer these two payments and it is up to Mrs X and Miss Y if they wish to accept.

Remedies

40. I have also considered whether the Council’s recommendations properly remedy the injustice caused.
41. The service improvement recommendations were adequate to reduce the risk of the identified faults occurring again. I welcome that most of these have been implemented, but, I am concerned that despite the Council agreeing to these recommendations in June 2025, some of these still remain outstanding, including:

• Reviewing its practice to ensure information about siblings and wider family members and the options available to contact them are discussed with looked after children and their advocates.
• Review its practice where a looked after child experiences bereavement to ensure the child is engaged so they can consider the options open to the child for support.
• Produce a policy and procedure for dealing with the probate of estates in which looked after children have an interest.

42. The Council has explained the reasons for the delay in implementing these, which includes vacant staff positions. I will ask the Council to provide an action plan, with timeframes in which it will complete these recommendations.
43. I also note the Council rejected one of the panel’s recommendations. This was that the Council should review the connected person pay rates and explain to Mrs X and Miss Y what they will put in place. Getting the Best from Complaints says if a council decides to deviate from panel recommendations, then it should explain its reasons for doing so. Here, the Council explained the reasons for this deviation, in line with the guidance. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make, and one made without fault.
44. In terms of personal remedies for the injustice caused, I welcome the Council’s apology for the faults identified in the statutory process and that it has agreed to make a payment for Miss Y for bereavement support. I understand that Miss Y has not yet accepted this, but she still has the option to do so.
45. The Council also offered Miss Y a payment of £500 for the distress caused for the faults identified. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies outlines that we can recommend small, symbolic payments which recognise an injustice. I have reviewed this guidance when considering if £500 is adequate for the injustice caused to Miss Y. I have also considered that Miss Y was a vulnerable child at the time of these faults and that these were over a prolonged period of time.
46. Although the Council offered £500, which is in line with our guidance on remedies. I will recommend the Council increase this payment to £1000 to take account of Miss Y’s vulnerability and the period of time that these faults covered.

Back to top

Action

47. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mrs X and 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;
2. reoffer Mrs X the payment of £500 to recognise the distress and time and trouble caused by the complaint process and the delays of such;
3. reoffer Miss Y £1000 to recognise the distress and time and trouble caused by the complaint process and the delays of such;
4. reoffer the £600 payment to Miss Y for bereavement support;
5. make a payment of £1000 to Miss Y to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the faults identified in the statutory procedure. This is to replace the previous offer of £500.
6. Provide an action plan to include timeframes for completion of the outstanding recommendations:

• Reviewing its practice to ensure information about siblings and wider family members and the options available to contact them are discussed with looked after children and their advocates.
• Review its practice where a looked after child experiences a bereavement to ensure the child is engaged so they can consider the options open to them for support.
• Produce a policy and procedure for dealing with the probate of estates in which looked after children have an interest.

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

Back to top

Decision

49. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman