Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly respond to safeguarding concerns regarding Y and failed to properly handle her complaint. The evidence found fault in the Council's complaint handling. This caused Miss X frustration, uncertainty, and the loss of opportunity to access the statutory Stage 2 complaints process. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly respond to safeguarding concerns she raised about Y, who is a looked after child placed with their father under a care order. She said the Council failed to appropriately involve her in care planning and decision-making and failed to properly handle her complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. Miss X said this caused significant distress, frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the Council's handling of safeguarding concerns raised by Miss X between January 2024 and October 2025 and its handling of her complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure.
7. I have not investigated matters relating to the Family Court's jurisdiction, including where Y should live, contact arrangements or whether the care order should be discharged.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss 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

Relevant legislation and guidance

The statutory complaints process

10. 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.
11. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
12. 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.

Duty to make enquiries

13. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
14. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.

What happened

15. Miss X raised several safeguarding concerns regarding Y during 2024 and 2025. These included concerns regarding alleged sexualised behaviour, social media use, Y’s welfare and living arrangements.
16. The Council responded through safeguarding processes, including Child and Family Assessments, direct work with Y and Y’s sibling, statutory visits, consultation with education and other agencies, management oversight, Permanency Monitoring Group discussions, Risk Management Meetings and Independent Reviewing Officer oversight. The Council acknowledged there had been some incidents of inappropriate language or behaviour. However, it concluded the available evidence did not establish ongoing sexual harm or abuse, or an escalating safeguarding risk, and considered Y to be settled in their father’s care.
17. Miss X made a formal complaint in late September 2025.
18. The Council issued its Stage 1 response in early October 2025. It addressed the substance of Miss X's complaint but did not advise her of her right to request a Stage 2 investigation under the statutory children's complaints procedure. Instead, it directed her to the Ombudsman.
19. During this investigation the Council accepted the omission of Stage 2 escalation rights was an oversight. It also confirmed it had not relied upon Regulation 8 of the Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure Regulations 2006, which allows councils in certain circumstances to decline or discontinue consideration of a complaint, for example where court proceedings may be prejudiced. The Council further accepted that it may have been preferable for a different manager, rather than the manager named within the complaint, to have issued the response.

Analysis and findings

20. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
21. The evidence shows the Council repeatedly considered Miss X’s safeguarding concerns over an extended period. It completed safeguarding enquiries and Child and Family Assessments, undertook direct work with Y and Y’s sibling, obtained information from the school and other professionals, and reviewed the concerns through established management and multi-agency processes. The records show the Council considered the reported incidents and put safeguards in place, including recommending that any future family time should be supervised. It concluded the incidents did not demonstrate ongoing sexual harm or abuse, or an escalating safeguarding risk.
22. Miss X disagreed with the Council’s assessment of the incidents and the level of risk they presented. However, disagreement with its professional conclusions does not, in itself, establish fault. The available evidence shows the Council considered the reported incidents, completed relevant assessments and direct work, sought information from other professionals and recorded its reasoning. There is no evidence the Council ignored the concerns or failed to follow an appropriate safeguarding process. There is therefore no fault in the Council’s substantive response to the safeguarding concerns.
23. But there is fault in the Council's complaint handling. Following its Stage 1 response, the Council should have advised Miss X of her right to request progression to Stage 2. Instead, it directed her to the Ombudsman. The Council accepted during this investigation this omission was an oversight. The Council failed to follow the statutory children's complaints procedure.
24. The Council also acknowledged it may have been preferable for the Stage 1 response to have been issued by a different manager rather than the manager named within the complaint. While this is noted, it has not been established that this caused a separate significant injustice beyond the complaint handling fault already identified.

Injustice

25. Miss X lost the opportunity to have her complaint considered through the independent Stage 2 investigation provided for under the statutory children's complaints procedure.
26. This caused avoidable frustration, uncertainty, and time and trouble.
27. However, the available evidence does not support a finding that a Stage 2 investigation would probably have reached a different conclusion regarding the safeguarding concerns. Accordingly, the complaint handling fault did not cause injustice in respect of the Council's safeguarding decisions. Miss X has also now had the benefit of the Ombudsman's independent consideration of those matters and has therefore not been significantly disadvantaged by the loss of the Stage 2 process.

Back to top

Action

28. Within one month of our final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay £200 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused by the lost opportunity to access the statutory Stage 2 complaints process.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman