Summary: Mr X complained the Council produced a care plan for his child, Y which does not align with a care order. He also complained about poor communication from its legal department. The Council started investigating the complaint through the statutory procedure but failed to consider it at stage three. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay a symbolic payment to recognise the frustration and arrange a stage three panel to consider Mr X’s complaint without further delay.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure care planning for his child, Y, aligns with a court judgement. He also complained the Council’s legal department failed to respond to him regarding his child, Y’s case.
2. Mr X said this has caused him distress and uncertainty and wants the care order to be discharged and for the Council to apologise.

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 the 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(i), 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant legislation and guidance

Statutory children’s complaint procedure

8. 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.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all, or all significant complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

What happened

Mr X’s corporate complaint

13. Mr’s X child, Y, is subject to a care order, granted in June 2023.
14. In July 2024, Mr X complained to the Council, he said its legal department had failed to respond to him and he had not been told who the legal representative for his child’s case was. He said the Council had not kept him updated about their well-being, care planning contradicted the care order, and a risk assessment had not been completed.
15. The Council said is legal department had no record of any communication from Mr X, further should it have received any, this would have been forwarded on to the relevant department to respond to. It said the there was no legal representative assigned as there were no current legal proceedings.

Mr X’s statutory children’s complaint.

16. Mr X complained again In August 2025, he said the Council appointed independent reviewing officer (IRO), responsible for overseeing Y’s care plan, had not shown due diligence during the court case, had produced a plan that did not align with the care order, he had not been given time to review documents and a risk assessment to increase contact time with Y was still outstanding.
17. The Council requested extra time to respond to Mr X’s complaint, Mr X agreed. It provided a stage one response in September 2024.
18. Mr X was unhappy with the stage one response and escalated it to stage two of the statutory complaints procedure.
19. The Council appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) to consider Mr X’s complaint. The IO completed the stage two investigation at the end of January 2025. It upheld four complaints about completion of a risk assessment, delays in supervision arrangements, access to meeting minutes and poor communication. It did not uphold complaints that the Council had failed to be flexible, consider Y’s welfare and produce a care plan in line with the care order. The IO was not able to reach a finding on two further complaints about manager and IRO actions in the case. It identified some personal remedies for Mr X and made recommendations for service improvement.
20. The adjudicating officer wrote to Mr X in February 2025. They said they agreed with the IO’s report and recommendations.
21. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X asked for a stage three panel to consider his complaint in April 2025. Mr X said he wanted the panel to consider the complaints as there had been no attempt by the Council to correct mis- information in the case.
22. The Council arranged a stage three panel. It asked Mr X to clarify what outcomes he was seeking from the ‘not upheld’ elements of his complaint. On receiving Mr X’s response that Council said the elements he was raising were matters the panel was unable to consider. It said there was a difference in opinion between Mr X and the Council, however a stage three panel would not change the outcome of the stage two investigation report. It told Mr X he could approach the Ombudsman if he was dissatisfied.

My findings

23. 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, we expect people to complete the complaints procedure before we will consider whether there were any flaws in how the Council investigated their concerns.
24. The Council’s suggestion for Mr X to approach the Ombudsman without a stage three consideration was not in line with ‘getting the best from complaints’. The case did not meet the criteria for an early referral to us because the stage two investigation did not uphold all the significant complaint. Further, refusal to progress Mr X’s complaint as the outcome will not change is not one of the criteria set out within the guidance.
25. I have not seen any evidence to show poor communication from the Council’s legal department. This is not the substantive matter of the complaint, further Mr X’s concerns regarding poor communication in his case are matters within his statutory children’s complaint.

Back to top

Action

26. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the Council’s failure to consider his complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Arrange a stage three panel to consider Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I have completed the investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice due to non-compliance with the statutory procedure. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman