Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her daughter’s social worker not providing appropriate support during child in need interventions, and about delay in the Council dealing with her complaint under the statutory children’s complaint procedure. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about her daughter’s allocated social worker. She says the social worker failed to provide appropriate support during child in need intervention. She also complains the Council has delayed in dealing with her complaint under the statutory children’s complaint procedure.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X first complained to us in February 2024. Following our enquiries, the Council confirmed Miss X had requested to escalate her complaint and that the Council would progress it.
6. Miss X reapproached us in September 2024 as she had not received any response from the Council. Following our enquiries, the Council explained it had not progressed the complaint to stage 2. Instead, the Council had offered a conciliatory meeting with Miss X under its alternative dispute resolution process (ADR).
7. The statutory guidance ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’ details that nothing in the statutory procedure should preclude the council from suggesting ADR. It notes that if agreed by both the complainant and the complaints manager, the council should explore this option. The Council’s policy details the option for ADR. It notes the conciliation meeting should take place at stage one.
8. The Council offered conciliation/ADR after it had issued its stage one complaint response, which was not in line with its policy. Further, while the Council provided evidence it told Miss X about offering an ADR approach, it isn’t clear if Miss X fully understood what this meant as her response was to just agree to a face-to-face meeting. Therefore, there is uncertainty if Miss X provided explicit consent for the Council to proceed with ADR, rather than to stage two of the statutory process.
9. It is also accepted the statutory guidance does detail that alternative dispute resolution can be explored. However, it is silent on when in the process this should be offered. It is likely the Ombudsman would take the position that ADR should not be offered once the statutory complaints process has begun, unless there is explicit agreement from the complainant to proceed in this manner and that the complainant has been provided full and unambiguous information about the ADR process.
10. We therefore asked the Council to remedy the injustice caused by the complaint handling delays by apologising and making a symbolic financial payment of £400.
11. Miss X confirmed to the Ombudsman she would now like to proceed to stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure. The Council should process this without further delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld this complaint because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman