Summary: Mrs Y complained that the Council unreasonably refused to complete stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. We find no fault in the Council’s actions or decision making.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained on behalf of her mum that the Council has unreasonably refused to complete stage two of the children statutory complaints procedure.
2. She says this denied her mum the opportunity for a proper assessment of her complaint and negatively impacted her mums mental and physical 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs Y 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 law and guidance

Statutory complaints procedure

7. 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.
8. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
9. 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.
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.

The Ombudsman Guidance for Practitioners: Children’s statutory complaint process (updated November 2023)

“What if the complainant will not agree a statement of complaint?”

11. If the complainant will not agree to the statement of complaint and the council is confident it understands what the complaint is, it should tell the complainant it intends to continue with the investigation. It should offer them a final chance to agree the details of the complaint to be investigated.
12. If the council cannot gather enough information to define the complaint it should write to the complainant explaining it cannot continue unless they can explain what they are unhappy about. The council should keep detailed records of any decision to proceed with an investigation or to end it. If a council decides to end an investigation, it should signpost the complainant to us.

What happened

13. In August 2023, Mrs X complained to the Council about a social worker and their line manager. The Council investigated the complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure and issued its stage one response in September 2023. It partially upheld some parts of her complaint, and shared service improvements it would make.
14. Mrs X remained dissatisfied. The Council engaged in further meetings and correspondence with Mrs X. In May 2024, Mrs X requested a stage two investigation. The Council progressed the complaint, appointing an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) to carry out the stage two investigation.
15. A draft Statement of Complaint (SOC) was shared with Mrs X, but she refused to sign it, saying it didn’t accurately reflect her concerns. Despite amendments to the SOC and several attempts to clarify the scope of investigation, agreement could not be reached. The Council accepted additional new complaint points raised by Mrs X given the passage of time, but Mrs X continued to raise concerns that the SOC did not reflect her complaint accurately.
16. In November, Mrs X signed the SOC with handwritten objections, stating she felt pressured and that her complaint had not been fully discussed. The IO and IP raised concerns about proceeding the investigation in light of this and the lack of agreement on the issues to be investigated.
17. In December, the Council decided not to proceed with the stage two investigation. It explained that, despite multiple opportunities and ongoing engagement, it had not been possible to agree the points of complaint necessary to carry out an investigation.

My findings

18. The Council followed the children’s statutory complaints procedure by investigating Mrs X’s concerns at stage one and offering a further meeting when she remained dissatisfied.
19. When Mrs X requested progression to stage two, the Council made multiple attempts to clarify the complaint, held additional meetings, and appointed an IO and IP in accordance with statutory requirements. Despite these efforts, agreement on the SOC could not be reached. The Council made further attempts to clarify the issues, including consideration of new complaint points raised after stage one.
20. The Council ultimately decided not to proceed with the investigation. It based this decision on Mrs X’s continued disagreement with the SOC and her objections to the investigation process, including concerns about the IO and IP. In line with paragraph 11 above, the Council was initially prepared to proceed without agreement on the SOC, provided it understood the nature of the complaint. However, when Mrs X confirmed the amended SOC did not reflect her complaint and raised fundamental concerns about the process, the Council reasonably concluded it did not have sufficient clarity to continue.
21. Based on my review of the evidence of correspondence between Mrs X, the Council, and the IO and IP, I find no fault in the Council’s actions or decision-making. The Council gave Mrs X multiple opportunities to define her complaint clearly, but it ultimately did not have adequate information to define the complaint and was entitled, in accordance with paragraph 12 above, to conclude it could not proceed with the stage two investigation.

Back to top

Decision

22. I have completed my investigation, and I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman