Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with matters related to his children. The Council was at fault for further delay in completing stage three of the statutory complaint procedure. This caused Mr X further frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment for the injustice caused and provide evidence that it has completed stage three.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council delayed in arranging the statutory complaint procedure stage three panel meeting.
2. Mr X says his substantive complaints remain unanswered which has caused him and his family significant distress and prevented them from having a family life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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 Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed in arranging the statutory complaint procedure stage three panel meeting.
7. I have not investigated Mr X’s substantive complaints. I have explained why in paragraphs 25 - 27.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Legislation and guidance

Statutory complaints procedures - the three-stage 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.

What happened?

16. Mr X complained to the Council in 2023 about several issues related to the care of his children. The Council dealt with these complaints by way of the statutory complaints procedure.
17. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response at stage two and asked the Council to progress to stage three in January 2024. Despite agreeing to do so, it had still not arranged the stage three panel meeting by July 2025. Mr X complained about this delay to the Ombudsman.
18. The Ombudsman invited the Council to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X by its delay by apologising, making a financial remedy of £500 and arranging a stage three panel meeting by the end of September 2025. The Council accepted these actions.
19. In October 2025, the Council confirmed it had apologised and made the financial remedy. It also explained it had been unable to arrange the stage three panel because of scheduling difficulties.
20. The Council updated in November that Mr X expressed he was unavailable for a panel meeting for the majority of November and December 2025. It also noted it was still having difficulty in arranging a panel meeting.
21. In April 2026, the Council confirmed it had arranged the panel meeting for June 2026.

Findings

22. When the Ombudsman invited the Council to remedy Mr X’s complaint in July 2025, it agreed to complete the stage three panel meeting by the end of September 2025. Despite this, the meeting is not scheduled to be held until June 2026. This is a significant further delay when considering that Mr X first asked for the stage three panel meeting in January 2024. The continued delay is fault.
23. I have considered the injustice this delay has caused Mr X. I note that the injustice caused by the delay up until July 2025 has already been remedied by the Council. I have therefore considered the injustice the delay has caused Mr X from the end of September 2025 (when the Council agreed to hold the meeting) until June 2026 (when it intends to hold the meeting). This period of nine months is a considerable further delay, which likely caused Mr X further frustration and uncertainty.
24. I do note that Mr X told the Council he was unavailable for the majority of November and December 2025, which is likely to have contributed towards the delay. For this reason, I will suggest the Council apologise and make a payment of £350 to recognise this extended delay. This is calculated at £50 per month for seven months. I will also ask the Council to provide evidence that it held the stage three panel meeting in June 2026.
25. 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. This independence is not available to complaints put through the corporate complaints procedure. Because of this, we expect people to complete the complaints procedure before we will consider whether there were any flaws in how the Council investigated their concerns.
26. The Council has agreed to hold a stage three panel meeting in June 2026, and we expect him to use this right if he remains unhappy with the Council’s response to the stage two investigation. For this reason, we would not investigate any of Mr X’s substantive complaints.
27. If Mr X remains dissatisfied after completing the three stages of the procedure, he can approach us again and ask us to consider investigating his complaint.

Back to top

Action

28. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council should:

• apologise to Mr X for the further delay in holding the stage three panel meeting; and
• make a payment of £350 to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s delay in completing the procedure.

By 9 July 2026, the Council should:

• provide evidence that it has completed stage three of the statutory complaint process.

29. 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