Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council conducted its statutory children’s complaints investigation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate some of Mr X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. We will not investigate the rest of Mr X’s complaint because another body is better placed.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of a statutory children’s complaint he raised regarding his child, Y.
2. Mr X said the matters caused him frustration and distress.
3. Mr X wants the Council to implement service improvements and provide a higher remedy payment for the identified failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether social workers are meeting their professional standards of conduct. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement with his child, Y. The core chronology of the complaint event is as follows:
1. May 2023: Mr X complained to the Council.
2. June 2023: the Council sent Mr X a stage one response. The Council accepts some fault including failing to share an assessment with him and failing to involve him in the Child in Need process.
3. August 2023: Mr X asked to escalate his complaint.
4. January 2024: the Council finishes the stage two process. Both the Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) have access to relevant information and documents. The report upholds many of Mr X’s complaints and makes suitable recommendations for service improvements. The Council accepts the findings and recommendations in its stage two adjudication letter.
5. Late January 2024: Mr X asked for a stage three escalation.
6. Mid-March 2024: the original stage three panel date – re-arranged because Mr X was unable to attend.
7. Late March 2024: stage three panel held. The panel considers the relevant information and offers for additional evidence to be provided. The panel explained how the decisions were reached.
8. April 2024: Council’s stage three adjudication letter. The Council accepted there were things it should have done better and accepted the recommendations of the stage three panel.
9. May 2024: The Council wrote to Mr X to apologise and made a remedy offer of £400 in acknowledgement of the distress and uncertainty caused by the identified faults.
10. January 2025: Mr X brings his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Statutory complaints process

9. 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. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
10. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s complaints through the statutory complaints process. The substantive matters were considered and relevant evidence obtained to enable a thorough evaluation. The recommendations were appropriate and the remedy payment for Mr X was in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
12. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Delay

13. While the substantive matters were addressed, there was a delay at stage two of the process. This should take no longer than 65 working days. The Council completed the process in 114 working days. This is approximately 10 weeks of delay. However, I do not consider this delay caused Mr X a significant injustice.
14. While it may have caused Mr X some frustration, it is not significant enough to warrant our involvement on this point alone. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Social Work England

15. A large portion of Mr X’s complaints related to the conduct of the allocated social worker. This included allegations of professional misconduct.
16. Social workers are registered professionals with standards of practice. If Mr X is concerned about the social worker’s practice, Social Work England is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider his concerns. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate some of Mr X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. We will not investigate the final part of Mr X’s complaint because another body is better placed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman