Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on safeguarding concerns, delayed providing support for his disabled son, and restricted the investigation of his concerns. The Council was at fault in how it responded to safeguarding concerns, delayed support under a Child in Need assessment, and handled both the complaints process and the Stage 2 investigation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed providing appropriate support for his son, Y, following concerns raised by his tutors in early 2024. He says the Council failed to act on multiple safeguarding referrals and delayed completing a Child in Need assessment, despite earlier requests and a Tribunal recommendation. Mr X also says the assessment report contained factual inaccuracies and the Council failed to keep him properly informed. Mr X considers these faults caused emotional distress, placed the family at risk of harm, and prolonged the time without support. Mr X is seeking an apology and financial remedy.

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(i), as amended)
4. 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 not investigated

5. Mr X raised concerns about factual inaccuracies in the Council’s Child in Need assessment report. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether professional judgments recorded in social care assessments are accurate. If Mr X believes the report contains inaccurate personal data, he can ask the Council to correct it under the right to rectification set out in data protection law. The Council’s Data Protection Officer is best placed to consider such a request. Alternatively, Mr X may wish to ask the Council to record his objections on file.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council were offered 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

8. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about certain children’s social care functions. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.

Ombudsman’s policy on statutory complaints

9. Once a complaint has been through the full procedure, unless we identify fault in how the Council carried out the stage two investigation or stage three panel, we should not reinvestigate the substantive matters. Even in cases where we identify fault, we should first consider whether to recommend the Council carry out a new stage two or three.
10. Where there are no meaningful failings in the stage two investigation or stage three panel, our consideration of a complaint should focus on whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations in the IO, IP’s and panel’s reports, if the agreed recommendations remedy the complainant’s injustice and if the council has carried out those recommendations without delay.

Child in Need

11. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
12. A child is in need if:
• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.
13. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children)

Back to top

What happened

Background

14. Y has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and was the subject of an ongoing Child in Need (CIN) assessment by the Council’s children’s services.
15. Between January and February 2024, Y’s tutors raised several concerns with the Council, reporting incidents they considered to involve immediate risk of harm; some incidents were reported to the Police. It is understood that the Council did not treat these referrals as standalone safeguarding matters, but instead considered them as part of the existing CIN assessment.

Mr X’s complaint

16. In March 2024, Mr X submitted a formal complaint to the Council under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. He raised concerns that:
• The Council failed to respond appropriately to urgent safeguarding referrals made by Y’s tutors.
• The Council delayed providing appropriate support under a Child in Need assessment.
• There had been long-term failures in social care involvement and communication.
• The Council mishandled its response to his complaint.
17. He said the Council’s actions had placed him and Y at risk, caused emotional harm, and delayed necessary support. Mr X said he wanted the Council to apologise and provide financial redress for the distress caused, as well as the delay in receiving appropriate support.

Stage one complaint

18. The Council issued its Stage 1 complaint response in March 2024. It accepted some of Mr X’s concerns and apologised that the service had fallen short of expected standards. The Council said the concerns raised by the tutors had been considered as part of the wider CIN assessment and that appropriate support was now being put in place. Mr X remained dissatisfied and requested a Stage 2 investigation later that month.

Stage two investigation

19. The Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) to investigate the complaint under Stage 2 of the statutory procedure. Mr X raised multiple points of complaint, including the Council’s handling of safeguarding referrals, delays in assessment and support, and failure to communicate effectively.
20. The IO submitted a draft report in August 2024 and a final report in early October 2024. The IO upheld several complaint points, including that:
• The Council failed to explain its processes or share key documents with Mr X during the assessment period.
• It failed to respond clearly or consistently to safeguarding concerns raised by professionals.
• It delayed communication, failed to keep accurate records, and did not consistently explain what services were available or how they would be accessed.
• Its Stage 1 complaint response did not address all aspects of the complaint.
21. The Council’s subsequent adjudication response in October 2024 acknowledged shortcomings in the assessment report and apologised for factual inaccuracies. However, it did not accept fault in relation to its handling of safeguarding referrals, delays in assessment or communication, or the failure to share key documents.
22. However, the IO was unable to speak with Y’s tutors, who had submitted the safeguarding referrals. The Council advised that it was not necessary to interview them, and the IO followed this direction. The IP supported the IO’s findings but noted that the absence of these interviews may have limited the investigation’s scope. Mr X remained dissatisfied.

Stage three review panel

23. Mr X requested progression to Stage 3 of the statutory complaints process. The Council held a review panel in September 2024, attended by Mr X and Council representatives. The panel upheld the findings of the Stage 2 investigation and raised further concern about the Council’s refusal to allow the IO to interview key professionals. The panel expressed that this omission may have limited the fairness and scope of the investigation.
24. The Council only apologised for inaccuracies in the assessment documentation and did not uphold the substantive issues raised in the complaint. It did not offer a financial remedy to Mr X.

The Council’s response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries

25. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. Of note the Council said:
• It considered the concerns raised by Y’s tutors as part of an ongoing Section 17 Child in Need assessment. It did not initiate separate safeguarding (Section 47) action, as it felt the threshold for this was not met.
• A Police referral had already been made by a professional, and the Council agreed a safety plan with Mr X. It said further safeguarding action was unnecessary in this context.
• The tutors were not interviewed as part of the Stage 2 investigation because the Council believed their concerns had already been sufficiently recorded in writing and explored in the assessment process. The Council acknowledged that the Review Panel later disagreed with this decision.
• It acknowledged the Stage 2 investigation exceeded the 65 working day timescale. The Council attributed this to delays in scoping the complaint and finalising the complaint summary.
• The Investigating Officer kept Mr X updated about progress, though it did not provide evidence of any formal written notifications or revised timescales as required by the statutory guidance.

Back to top

Analysis

Response to safeguarding concerns

26. Statutory guidance, including Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018), expects councils to consider safeguarding concerns on a case-by-case basis and assess whether they meet the threshold for child protection enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. Councils should record their decision-making and rationale where safeguarding referrals are received, especially where they decide not to initiate a formal enquiry.
27. In this case, several safeguarding referrals were made by Y’s tutors in early 2024. The referrals referenced multiple incidents involving concerning or unsafe behaviour, including verbal and physical conduct. Mr X says the tutors say they received no acknowledgement, offer of discussion, or support when they raised concerns. The evidence shows the Council did not initiate a separate safeguarding investigation, but instead considered the referrals as part of an open Child in Need (CIN) assessment under section 17. There is no record of the Council assessing or recording whether the referrals met the threshold for section 47 enquiries.
28. The Council told the Ombudsman it felt the threshold for child protection action was not met. It said the Police had already been notified, and a safety plan had been agreed with Mr X. However, based on the evidence available, there is no record that this rationale was documented at the time. There is also no evidence the Council formally reviewed the nature or escalation of the referrals or sought updated multi-agency views before concluding that the CIN pathway was sufficient.
29. The failure to properly consider and document whether the concerns warranted safeguarding enquiries was fault. Councils are entitled to exercise professional judgment in determining thresholds, but they must evidence this judgment, particularly in cases involving multiple referrals from education professionals. The lack of a recorded decision undermines transparency and means the Council cannot show it fulfilled its safeguarding duties appropriately.
30. This fault created avoidable uncertainty for Mr X about whether the Council gave proper weight to the risk of harm to him and Y. It also limited the ability of the Stage 2 investigation to consider this issue in full, as the Council had prevented the Investigating Officer from interviewing the tutors directly. While the Council ultimately agreed a safety plan, it should have assessed and recorded whether the concerns required a safeguarding response at the point they were raised.

Delay in completing Child in Need assessment and providing support

31. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on councils to assess and provide support to children in need, including disabled children. Statutory guidance says a multi-agency assessment should be completed within 45 working days of a referral being accepted, and, where services are required, the council should develop a Child in Need plan that sets out how those services will be delivered. The plan must be reviewed within three months of starting, and at least every six months thereafter.
32. In this case, the evidence shows Mr X had requested social care support for Y before the tutor safeguarding referrals were made. The Stage 2 report notes Mr X had been pursuing support since 2023 and that a Tribunal recommended the Council assess Y’s needs. There is no evidence the Council progressed to a formal Child in Need plan or began coordinated support until mid-2024. I have not seen evidence it provided a written plan setting out agreed actions, timescales, or a review process.
33. The Council acknowledged these delays during the complaints process. The Investigating Officer upheld Mr X’s complaint that there had been “uncertainties and contradictions” in the Council’s position, and that the process for developing a CIN plan had not been followed. The Council eventually agreed to fund two hours a week of Direct Payments in May 2024, over a year after Mr X first began seeking support.
34. This delay in progressing the CIN assessment and providing timely support was fault. The Council did not meet the 45-day assessment timeframe, nor did it issue or review a formal CIN plan in line with statutory expectations. This failure likely prolonged the period in which Y’s needs were unmet and placed greater pressure on Mr X in the interim.
35. As a result, Mr X and Y experienced avoidable delay in accessing support. Mr X also faced increased stress and uncertainty during a period in which he was actively seeking help from the Council.

Communication and sharing of information during assessment

36. Statutory guidance expects councils to work in partnership with families throughout the assessment process. This includes explaining what assessments involve, keeping parents informed of progress, and sharing assessment outcomes. The Council should ensure families are aware of what support is available and how decisions about eligibility and provision are made.
37. In this case, Mr X says the Council failed to explain the Child in Need process or provide him with relevant documents, including the completed assessment. He also says the Council did not respond clearly to his queries or set out what support was being considered or why. The Stage 2 investigation upheld this complaint.
38. The Investigating Officer found no evidence the Council gave Mr X information about the CIN process, either verbally or in writing. It did not share a copy of the assessment with him until many months later and did not clearly explain the support options available or what steps would follow. The Independent Person agreed with these findings and said the Council’s communication fell below expected standards.
39. The Council also accepted during the complaints process that it had failed to communicate effectively. It acknowledged Mr X had not been given clear information about the assessment or its outcomes and that this contributed to delay and frustration.
40. This was fault. Councils are expected to act transparently and collaboratively when assessing the needs of disabled children. Mr X was entitled to a clear explanation of the process, access to the assessment documentation, and an understanding of what support was being proposed. The Council’s failure to provide this information undermined Mr X’s ability to engage meaningfully with the assessment and likely increased his frustration and sense of exclusion.

Handling of the Stage 2 investigation

41. The statutory complaints procedure for children’s social care requires that councils appoint an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP) to carry out Stage 2 investigations. The IO must be independent of the line management of the service being complained about, and the IP must be completely independent of the council. The investigation must be thorough, fair, and sufficiently robust to establish the facts and make findings on each complaint element.
42. In this case, Mr X complained that the IO was not allowed to speak with Y’s tutors, the professionals who raised the original safeguarding concerns. He said this limited the investigation’s ability to address one of the key issues and undermined its independence.
43. The evidence supports this concern. The Stage 2 report confirms the IO was prevented from interviewing the tutors after being advised by the Council that it was not necessary. The IO noted this in the report, and the IP raised concern that this decision may have limited the fairness and completeness of the investigation. The Stage 3 Review Panel agreed, stating that the refusal restricted the scope of the investigation and meant important evidence was not considered.
44. Mr X also expressed concern that by refusing access to those who raised the concerns, the investigation lacked appropriate balance and challenge. He said that a fair investigation should allow the parties with differing accounts to be heard and that excluding the tutors removed an important opportunity for clarification.
45. The Council told the Ombudsman it believed the tutors’ views were already reflected in the written safeguarding referrals and that interviewing them was unnecessary. However, paragraph 3.6.3 of the statutory guidance says the IO must have access to all relevant staff and records to ensure a full and fair investigation. The Council’s refusal to allow interviews with key professionals was contrary to this expectation.
46. This was fault. The Council's actions limited the IO’s ability to gather first-hand evidence about the nature and seriousness of the safeguarding concerns. This reduced the investigation’s ability to reach a confident finding on a key issue, and affected Mr X’s confidence in the process. It also meant the investigation did not meet the full standard of independence and thoroughness set out in the statutory guidance.

Delay and procedural faults in the complaints process

47. The statutory children’s complaints procedure sets clear timescales for each stage. Stage 2 investigations must be completed within 65 working days of the complaint being agreed. Where delay is unavoidable, councils must keep the complainant informed, provide reasons, and set out revised timescales. The Council should also ensure that its Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses address each complaint point clearly and in full.
48. In this case, Mr X says the Stage 2 investigation took too long and that the Council failed to keep him updated. He also says the Stage 1 response was inadequate and did not address the complaint fully. These concerns were upheld during the statutory process.
49. The Council accepted that the Stage 2 investigation exceeded the 65 working day limit. It attributed the delay to difficulties in scoping the complaint and finalising the complaint summary. However, based on the evidence seen, the Council did not formally notify Mr X of revised timescales or provide reasons for delay, as required by the guidance.
50. The Stage 2 investigation also found the Stage 1 response had not addressed all aspects of the complaint or the outcomes Mr X had requested. This meant Mr X had to escalate his concerns without having received a meaningful first-stage response.
51. These were both faults. The Council did not complete the Stage 2 investigation within the required timescale or take sufficient steps to manage the delay in line with statutory expectations. It also failed to issue a Stage 1 response that adequately addressed the complaint. These procedural faults prolonged the complaints process unnecessarily and caused avoidable frustration to Mr X.

Injustice and remedy

52. The faults identified caused Mr X avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble. He experienced a delay in securing appropriate support for his son, confusion about the Council’s processes, and had to pursue a protracted complaints process to obtain an adequate response. These issues were acknowledged during the statutory procedure, but Mr X remained dissatisfied with the outcome and approached the Ombudsman.
53. The Ombudsman’s guidance states that we should only recommend a new Stage 2 or 3 investigation if:
• the original investigation was significantly flawed;
• a reinvestigation would serve a meaningful purpose; and
• the complainant still seeks that route.
54. While the Stage 2 investigation was materially limited by the Council’s refusal to allow the Investigating Officer to interview the tutors who had raised the safeguarding concerns. Mr X was not made aware of this restriction during the investigation. The Stage 3 Review Panel expressed concern that this omission may have undermined the fairness and scope of the process. Although Mr X is not seeking a reinvestigation, and the investigation upheld several complaint points, the process did not fully meet the standard of independence and thoroughness set out in statutory guidance.
55. The Council accepted the findings in full. Mr X has not asked for a reinvestigation. In these circumstances, a new Stage 2 or Stage 3 would therefore not serve a meaningful purpose. The complaint has already been considered through the full statutory procedure. The Ombudsman is now best placed to address the remaining injustice through a formal finding and proportionate financial remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. Although the Council acknowledged limited fault during the statutory complaints process and issued a partial apology, it did not offer a financial remedy. The Ombudsman’s recommendations therefore aim to ensure the identified injustice is appropriately remedied, and that future investigations and assessments are not similarly limited.
57. To prevent similar occurrences and to remedy the injustice identified in this investigation, the Council will:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the faults identified. The apology should be in line with our published Guidance on Remedies.
2. Pay Mr X £600 to recognise the avoidable distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused by:
1. delay in completing the Child in Need assessment and providing support;
2. failure to respond clearly to safeguarding concerns;
3. poor communication and failure to share relevant information;
4. delay and fault in the statutory complaints process.
3. Remind relevant staff of the importance of:
1. enabling Investigating Officers to interview all relevant professionals, in line with statutory guidance;
2. providing clear and timely communication during assessments, including sharing key documents; and
3. issuing written updates and revised timescales where complaints investigations are delayed.
58. The Council will complete these actions within one month of the final decision and provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

59. The Council was at fault in how it responded to safeguarding concerns, delayed support under a Child in Need assessment, and handled both the complaints process and the Stage 2 investigation. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman