Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council carried out the statutory complaint procedure. The Council was at fault for a flawed investigation. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and complete a new stage two investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council carried out the statutory complaint procedure, in relation to his grandson, Y, he says:

• the independent officer failed to consider important documents and consult with people relevant to the complaint; and
• the Council failed to consider all his complaint points and missed key information from the investigation.

2. Mr X says this has caused him significant distress and he has been unable to work. He also says the lack of support from the Council has meant that Y is now living away from home full time which has impacted negatively on his behaviour and mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

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

Statutory complaints procedures - the three-stage process

8. 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.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution.
10. 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.
11. 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.
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.

Our investigation

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.

Looked after children

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

Section 17 duties

16. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
17. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

Section 20

18. Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 says councils shall provide accommodation to any child in need within their area who needs it, because:

• there is nobody with parental responsibility to care for them;
• they have been lost or abandoned; or
• the person who has been caring for them being prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care.

What happened?

19. Mr X complained to the Council about several matters relating to the care of his grandson Y. The Council agreed to consider this under the statutory complaint procedure.
20. The IO completed their stage two investigation report in early February 2025. The IP then completed their investigation report noting that they agreed with all the findings and recommendations of the IO and that they had reached balanced conclusions based on the evidence and information available.
21. The adjudicating officer wrote to Mr X in mid-February with the outcome of the stage two investigation. They noted that they agreed with all the IO findings and decided the Council would not uphold that it:

• wrongly closed Y’s case when he was putting himself and others at risk of harm;
• failed to consider the welfare of another child, Z, that was living with Mr X and Y; and
• failed to respond properly to Y as a child in need and then ignored Mr X’s requests for Y to become a looked after child under section 20.

22. The Council partially upheld that it failed to act when Mr X said he needed more support and failed to act to keep everyone safe from physical and emotional harm. The Council said it partially upheld this point not because it was neglectful in its duty of care, but because it did not keep good enough records to be able to establish the full extent of support it offered.
23. Mr X was unhappy with the stage two investigation and asked the Council to complete a stage three review by independent panel.
24. The Council agreed to this and held a panel meeting in mid-May.
25. The independent chair wrote to Mr X the following day. They noted concerns raised by the panel about the stage two investigation, which included:

• The IO failed to interview two key council officers, including a social worker.
• The IO agreed to a complaint point related to the welfare of Z but failed to consider how this could be investigated properly and fairly. They noted the IO and the Council should have gained consent from Z’s mother to access their records so this point could have been investigated but failed to do so.
• The wording of one of the complaints was unclear and open to interpretation.
• Despite Mr X presenting information about referrals he had made to various agencies about Y, the IO did not follow these up with the relevant agencies to clarify the specific details.
• The Council’s case recording was poor. The panel considered this should have prompted the IO to explore details further with individual workers but they failed to do so.
• Key areas of the investigation were missing and so the panel could not reach fair, balanced and logical conclusions. For this reason, the panel decided it could not make a finding on several of the complaint points.

26. The Council wrote to Mr X with its view of the stage three investigation in mid-June. It noted that there were gaps in the stage two investigation, but it had since investigated the complaint further. Based on this the Council changed three of the findings from unable to make a finding to not upheld.

Findings

27. 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. Therefore, our role is to consider whether a council has properly completed the procedure rather than re-investigate the substantive complaints.
28. In this case, the independent panel, independent panel chair and the Council all accepted that the stage two investigation was flawed because the stage two investigation did not consider all relevant information. This was fault, which caused Mr X uncertainty about the reliability of the stage two process. It also led to the Council making inconclusive findings at the stage three panel meeting.
29. Although I accept that the Council decided to reinvestigate the matters again after the stage three panel meeting, and in turn change its findings based on new evidence, this was not in line with the statutory procedure and was fault.
30. Mr X was entitled to an independent investigation of his complaint before the Council made its final recommendations. But, the Council’s decision to reinvestigate the matters at the end of the three stages meant that the findings and recommendations were not independently investigated or reviewed.
31. This caused Mr X further uncertainty about the reliability of the procedure and frustration in having to complain again.
32. To recognise the injustice this caused, I will ask the Council to complete a new stage two investigation. In doing so, the Council should consider all elements of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Action

33. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty caused by its poor complaint handling. 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;
• make a payment of £200 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused by poor complaint handling;
• progress with a new investigation of Mr X’s complaint at stage two of the statutory complaint procedure and confirm appointment of an investigating officer and independent person to Mr X.

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman