Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed in its duty of care to him while he was a Looked After Child and failed to provide appropriate support when he left care. Mr X says he became a Looked after Child in 1999 and was mistreated by the carers he was placed with. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the investigation under the statutory complaints procedure. The Council has accepted and acted on the investigations findings and recommendations and we cannot add anything significant to the investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed in its duty of care to him while he was a Looked After Child and failed to provide appropriate support when he left care. Mr X says he became a Looked after Child in 1999 and was mistreated by the carers he was placed with.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. 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

6. 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.
7. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened here

Background

12. In 2000 Mr X’s mother arranged for Mr X and his siblings to live with Ms Y, a family friend. Ms Y applied to the court for a Residence Order which was granted in 2001. This Residence Order was in place until 2006 when Ms Y applied for it to be discharged.
13. In August 2006 the Council placed Mr X and his siblings in foster care with Ms Z and applied for care orders. In April 2008 Mr X refused to return to Ms Z's care and moved back to live with Ms Y.
14. Ms Y applied to the court for a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) for Mr X. The SGO then ended in 2012 when Mr X refused to return to Ms Y’s care.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

15. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2022 about the care he had received as a Looked after Child and a lack of support when he left care. The Council did not investigate Mr X’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In May 2024 the Council appointed an IO and IP to investigate his complaint at stage two of the process. The IO and IP met with Mr X in June 2024 and in early July 2024 agreed the following heads of complaint:
1. Mr X felt the Council failed in its duty of care to him as a Looked after Child by placing him with a family who had 5 birth children. The carers lived in a 3-bedroom house. It was very overcrowded. Mr X believed this was a poor match and did not meet his needs.
2. Mr X raised numerous concerns to social workers allocated to him about his welfare, which were of a safeguarding nature, during the time he spent with his carers in Ms Y and Ms Z. These concerns were ignored.
3. The placement with Ms Z was inappropriate and the placement had not been properly matched to meet his needs.
4. There was a failure to provide Mr X with support under the Leaving Care Act 2002. The Council failed to provide advice, support and a Personal Advisor so as to monitor and review his Pathway/Care Plan. At 16 he left care with no help and became homeless.
5. Mr X was inappropriately housed in a flat which is unsuitable because of his disabilities.
6. Mr X did not receive the monies he was entitled to as a Care Leaver.
16. The IO issued a report of their findings in March 2025. They made no finding in relation to complaint 5 and did not uphold the remaining complaints. The stage 2 investigation found Mr X went into Ms Y’s care initially under a private family arrangement. This was agreed between Mr X’s mother and Ms Y. The Council was not involved in the placement and Mr X was not a Looked after Child while in Ms Y’s care.
17. Mr X only became a Looked after Child in August 2006 when the Council placed him with Ms Z. The IO noted that whilst placed with Ms Z, Mr X made allegations about abuse and neglect he experienced while in Ms Y’s care. However, Mr X also continued to spend a lot of time at Ms Y’s home. He said he wanted to move back to the area to live with Ms Y or if this was not possible to live with a foster carer in the area.
18. The IO noted Mr X refused to return to Ms Z’s care in April 2008 and went to live with Ms Y. Mr X’s status as a Looked after Child ended when Mr X went to live with Ms Y under an SGO arrangement. Mr X then remained with Ms Y under an SGO arrangement until he chose to leave her care in 2012.
19. The report notes concerns about Ms Y’s care of Mr X were before the court as part of both the care proceedings and the subsequent SGO proceedings. And that Mr X was supported by a court arranged Guardian and a solicitor during these proceedings.
20. The IO also noted Ms Z’s care of Mr X was presented to a Fostering Panel and a Long-Term Matching Panel, both of which supported the arrangement.
21. In relation to Care Leavers support the IO was satisfied the documentation showed Mr X received all relevant support and finances. He also had a Pathway Plan and a personal advisor (PA) from 2014 onwards.
22. The Council’s stage two adjudicating officer wrote to Mr X in April 2025 accepting the IO’s findings. In relation to complaint 2 the officer wondered whether, with the benefit of hindsight, there could have been better curiosity about Mr X’s experience of care with Ms Z and the factors leading to his wanting to return to Ms Y. They said they would record this as a learning point and remind professionals of the need for curiosity.
23. The officer also apologised for the time taken to complete the stage two process. They noted it had taken eight months to complete the stage two process, which was six months longer than it should have taken. They offered a payment of £400 to recognise the delay.
24. The Council also arranged for an officer to review the case files and explore whether children’s services could have been more curious about Mr X’s experience in Ms Z’s care and his wish to return to Ms Y. The officer concluded that in hindsight, too much weight was given to Ms Z’s assertion that the placement was settled and the children’s behaviour was improving, over listening to verbal and non-verbal communication from the children. The officer thought social workers felt Ms Y was destabilising the placement and this was the primary reason for the placement breaking down, rather than factors within the placement.
25. Following this review the adjudicating officer wrote to Mr X again in May 2025 and acknowledged that Mr X appeared to have been left with too few choices about where he would live at times. They believed that more modern and sophisticated social care work may have opened up additional opportunities for Mr X.
26. The officer noted it was difficult to quantify the injustice associated with a lack of professional curiosity on such complex matters where the Council did not have the powers to make decisions about where he would live. It was also difficult to know what might have been different if additional work had been undertaken at critical times. They offered Mr X a symbolic payment of £1200 to recognise this.
27. Mr X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation and asked the Council to escalate the matter to the stage three panel. The panel met in June 2025 to consider Mr X’s complaints. The panel agreed with the IO’s findings that complaints 1 and 6 were not upheld, but changed the decision on complaints 2, 3, and 4 to inconclusive. The panel did not consider there was sufficient evidence to support findings of not upheld on these complaints.
28. The panel made recommendations including improvements in the retention of records; the need for clear records of decision making; staff training; and offering advocacy support. It also recommended the Council review the financial remedy.
29. The Council’s stage three adjudicator wrote to Mr X in July 2025 accepting the panel’s finding and recommendations. They set out the action taken in relation to each recommendation and offered a further symbolic payment of £400 to reflect the period of uncertainty from the stage two outcome to this letter.
30. Mr X remains unhappy and has complained to us.

Analysis

31. 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.
32. 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.
33. The stage two investigation and stage three panel review were properly conducted, albeit there were delays at stage two which took significantly longer than allowed. The Council has apologised for this and offered an appropriate remedy.
34. The Council did not place Mr X in Ms Y’s care in 2000, this was a private arrangement between Mr X’s mother and Ms Y. The arrangement was then confirmed by the court who granted a Residence Order confirming Mr X should live with Ms Y. When Mr X returned to live with Ms Y in 2008 this arrangement was again considered by the court who granted an SGO.
35. It is unfortunate that the stage three panel was unable to reach a conclusive decision on some of Mr X’s complaints due to the historic nature of the complaints and gaps in the Council’s records. But I do not consider we could achieve any more by further investigation.
36. The Council’s quality assurance team conducted a separate review of the period in which Mr X was a Looked after Child. This concluded there was evidence to suggest Mr X did not want to live with Ms Z but alternative carers were not being considered. The Council acknowledged Mr X was left with too few choices about where he could live. It is unclear whether this would have led to a different outcome.
37. The Council has made appropriate symbolic payments to recognise the uncertainty and distress this caused. That being the case, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find no fault in the way the Council carried out the investigation under the statutory complaints procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman