Summary: Mr G complained about the Council’s delays with completing his child’s, Y, Child in Need assessment and its refusal to consider his complaint under stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure. There was fault by the Council for its delays in completing a Child in Need assessment for Y, but this caused no significant injustice to Y and Mr G. The Council was also at fault for its failure to complete all the Child in Need recommendations in a timely manner and its failure to properly consider Mr G’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure which caused injustice to Y and Mr G. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr G complained the Council:
1. delayed completing a Child in Need (CiN) Assessment he requested in February 2024 for his disabled child (Y)
2. refused to complete Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the statutory complaints procedure to consider his complaint about the Council’s delays in completing a CiN assessment for Y and providing her with appropriate support
3. delayed and failed to provide Y with social care support and mental health support.
2. Mr G said as a result, Y lost out on social care and mental health support and that the matter also caused him significant distress.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have investigated matters from February 2024 to January 2025. This period covers the 12 months prior to when Mr G made his complaint to the Ombudsman.
8. I have not exercised discretion to investigate matters prior to 2024. These are late complaints, and I consider it reasonable for Mr G to have complained about the matters earlier. There are no good reasons to investigate them now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

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)
14. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review child in need plans regularly.

The Statutory Complaints Procedure

15. 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.
16. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. The review panel should identify any injustice to the complainant where complaints have been upheld and recommend appropriate actions to remedy the identified injustice caused. The panel should also recommend service improvements for the council, if appropriate.

Key events

22. Mr G has two children X and Y, both with some disabilities.
23. On 26 February 2024, Mr G asked the Council to complete a Child in Need (CiN) assessment for his child, Y, to identify and support her mental health and welfare. Mr G said this was due to the impact X’s behaviour had on Y.
24. On 29 May, the Council completed a social work (SW) assessment for Y. It found that Y was a ‘child in need’ who had additional needs and recommendations were made for the Council to progress CiN planning for Y. This was to support Y’s physical and emotional wellbeing, the CiN Plan included the Council to offer Y:
1. a referral to Post-Adoption Service support that was not linked to X, in order to consider how her own individual emotional needs could be met and what therapeutic offer could be made to her.
2. a referral to its Young Carers to have a space for herself and for support to explore and process the impact that X’s needs had upon her.
3. and her family an opportunity to work with the Family Solution Team (a family focused intervention) for 12 weeks around the difficulties within the home and safety planning.
25. Recommendations ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’ were to be completed within one week of the initial CiN meeting.
26. On 9 July, the initial CiN assessment meeting was held. At the time, Y’s CiN Plan showed that only the family intervention (recommendation ‘c’) had started.
27. The Council reviewed Y’s CiN assessment in October 2024 and in January 2025.
28. In response to our enquiries, the Council said:

• there was a delay with completing the CiN assessment (26 February to 29 May 2024) because of the need to engage Y in the assessment in the way that best suited her and delays in matching up professionals’ diaries with Y’s school timetable.
• Y had been receiving social care support since she was made subject to CiN planning on 29 May 2024
• recommendation ‘a’ referral (Post-Adoption Service) was made on 24 July 2024 after the CiN meeting held on 9 July 2024. Funded therapy sessions were put in place for Y which she engaged in but subsequently Y stopped attending and had missed five sessions as of 9 July 2025.
• recommendation ‘b’ referral to its Young Carers was made on 23 July 2025. The Council said the reason for the delay was it felt it was important to match Y with trusted professionals and their diaries.
• recommendation ‘c’ referral to Family Solution Team was made on 30 May 2024, the initial visit was completed on 5 June 2024, the Family Solutions Plan was dated 1 July 2024 and then closed on 10 September 2024.
• it continues to review Y’s social care and mental health support through CiN review meetings.

Complaint handling

29. In March 2024, Mr G made a complaint to the Council for its delay and failure to complete a CiN assessment for Y which he had requested in February 2024.
30. In its stage 1 response, the Council said after it received Mr G’s CiN assessment request, it opened a SW assessment for Y which was in progress and would be completed in due course.
31. Mr G was dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint, so he asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the statutory complaints procedure.
32. The Council replied to Mr G. It acknowledged Mr G had another complaint which had recently been escalated to stage 2 of the statutory complaints procedure in relation to his other child, X. The Council told Mr G that in line with the efficient operation of the statutory complaints procedure, it would arrange for his complaints about Y’s case to be added to X’s stage 2 investigation.
33. The investigating officer (IO) and the independent person (IP) met with Mr G to discuss the summary of complaints. And in June, Mr G agreed to the summary of complaints.
34. The stage 2 report was issued with outcomes mainly about X’s case. The report had three complaint points, two of which were solely complaints about X while one complaint point (delay in completing CiN assessments) was about both X and Y.
35. As regards Mr G’s complaint about the delay with completing Y’s CiN assessment, the stage 2 report confirmed ‘the assessment was completed at the end of May 2024 and recommended CiN planning, there was a CiN meeting held on 9 July’. There was no finding or conclusion made about Y’s case in the report.
36. The Council in its stage 2 adjudication letter agreed with the IO’s report.
37. The stage 3 report and Council’s adjudication letter only addressed Mr G’s complaints about X’s case and not Y’s case.
38. In January 2025, Mr G told the Council that it failed to deal with the complaint he made in March 2024 about Y’s case under the statutory complaints procedure.
39. The Council issued its final response and said Y’s case was considered together with X’s case during the stage 2 and stage 3 investigation. The Council said it was satisfied Mr G’s complaints had been fully considered under the statutory complaints procedure.
40. Mr G remained dissatisfied, and he made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
41. In response to our enquiries, the Council said:

• when it informed Mr G that Y’s case would be investigated alongside X’s case under the statutory complaints procedure, he raised no concerns about its proposed approach. The Council said it anticipated Mr G would have raised full detail of his outstanding issues when he met with the IO and IP to agree the summary of complaints to be investigated.
• after it reviewed the matter, it noted that the focus of the statutory complaint procedure was about X’s case and not Y’s case. The Council said, however, Mr G had the opportunity to have ensured his concerns (including Y’s case) were fully captured during the stage 2 process.

Analysis

CiN Assessment

42. Mr G requested a CiN assessment for Y on 26 February 2024, therefore the assessment should have been completed by 1 May 2025 (within the 45 working days statutory timescale). The Council completed a SW assessment for Y on 29 May 2024 which meant there was a delay of 18 working days. This was fault.
43. However, I find the delay was not significant enough to cause injustice to Y and Mr G. This is because the delay was slightly over the statutory timescale, and I also note the Council explained the delay was due to the need to engage Y in the assessment in the way and time that best suited her.
44. The SW assessment found that Y had additional needs, a CiN planning was recommended to be put in place for her, and it identified the services required to support Y and the family. These were decisions the Council was entitled to make, and it was not fault.
45. Also, CiN plans must be reviewed within three months of the start of the plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. After the Council held the initial CiN meeting on 9 July 2024, it held subsequent reviews in October 2024 and January 2025. I find these reviews were held regularly and within the statutory timescales and therefore, there was no fault by the Council.

CiN Plan Recommendations

46. Following the SW assessment, it was agreed that the recommended actions to support Y’s identified needs should be completed within one week of the initial CiN meeting. The CiN meeting was held on 9 July 2024, so the recommendations ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’ set out in paragraph 24 should have been completed by 16 July 2024.

a) referral to Post-Adoption Service

47. The Council made the referral on 24 July 2024. This was fault but I consider the eight days delay caused no significant injustice to Y.

b) referral to its Young Carers

48. The Council made the referral on 23 July 2025. This was a significant delay of approximately one year and it was fault. I find the Council’s delay caused injustice to Y which meant she missed out on specialist support over a significant period between 16 July 2024 to January 2025. This covers the period from when the referral should have been made to when Mr G complained to the Ombudsman.

c) referral offer for an opportunity for Y and her family to work with the Family Solution Team (a family focused intervention) for 12 weeks.

49. I find no fault by the Council as it promptly made a referral to the Family Solution Team, set up a plan to provide the agreed interventions and the plan was subsequently closed on 10 September 2024.

Complaint Handling – statutory complaint procedure

50. After a statutory complaints investigation, the Ombudsman does not normally reinvestigate the substantive matters, 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.
51. In this case, the Council proposed to merge Mr G’s complaint about Y’s case with that of X’s case under the same statutory complaints procedure. I note the Council’s point that Mr G met with the IO and IP, and he agreed with the summary of complaint before the stage 2 investigation started.
52. While I find the Council’s approach does not amount to fault in itself as there is no legislation directly prohibiting councils from conducting the same statutory complaint procedures for two individuals/siblings, the Council should have thoroughly assessed and investigated each case on its own merits and circumstances.
53. And although, Mr G’s complaint about the Council’s delays in completing the CiN assessments for both X and Y was captured in the IO report, I find fault by the Council for its failure to properly investigate Y’s case under the joint statutory complaints procedure. This is because in relation to Y’s case, the report only mentioned the dates the SW assessment and the initial CiN assessment were completed but it made no findings and/or conclusion on this aspect of Mr G’s complaint. Also, the focus of the stage 2 and stage 3 reports was on X’s case. These were faults.
54. The Council’s failure to properly consider Y’s case under the statutory complaints procedure therefore caused Mr G confusion and uncertainty as to whether the Council properly considered his complaint about how it dealt with Y’s CiN assessment referral request.

Conclusion

55. The Council was at fault with how it dealt with Y’s case under the statutory complaints procedure, I have therefore reinvestigated the substantive matter of Mr G’s complaint which was the Council’s delay in completing Y’s CiN assessment and delays with providing her with appropriate support.

Back to top

Action

56. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Y and Mr G to acknowledge the injustice caused to them by the Council’s failings as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• make Y a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the loss of Young Carers specialist support between July 2024 and January 2025
• make a symbolic payment of £150 to Mr G to recognise the Council’s failure to properly deal with his complaint under the statutory complaints procedure in relation to Y’s case
• share a copy of this decision with Council staff dealing with statutory complaints procedure. Ensure learning from this decision is shared appropriately and ensure individual cases/complaints are properly investigated under the statutory complaints procedure
• remind relevant staff of the need to complete ‘Child in Need’ assessments within the 45 working days from the date of the referral request in line with statutory timescales
• by training or other means, remind relevant staff of the importance of completing agreed recommendations set out in ‘Child in Need’ plans in a timely manner and within agreed timescales.

57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

58. I find fault by the Council causing injustice to Y and Mr G. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman