Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to respond appropriately to Mr X’s complaint about its care of him when he was a child. To remedy Mr X’s injustice, the Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and obtain an assessment of Mr X’s needs.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to protect him from significant harm when he was a child in its care. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure and offered to carry out several actions to remedy his injustice. However, Mr X says the Council’s offer is insufficient. He told the Council he hopes for around £20,000 or £25,000 in compensation.

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 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(1), 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 the 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.

Relevant law and guidance

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. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
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. 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 whether it agrees with the IO’s findings and 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.
12. 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.
13. 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, within 20 working days of the date they received the stage two response. 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 law sets out that at stage three, the council can comment on the panel’s recommendations, not its findings.
14. 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.
15. 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.

What happened

16. When Mr X was a child the Council took him into care. More than 10 years later, when he became an adult, Mr X complained to the Council about its care of him. He submitted his complaint in mid-January 2020 and, in brief, said the Council:
• Failed to protect him from abuse from his family;
• Placed him in accommodation where he was restrained too much and for too long;
• Failed to arrange therapy when he needed it; and
• Failed to consider if he should live with other family members when he asked to.
17. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage one of the children’s statutory complaints procedure in early June. It apologised for the delay responding, which it said was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It partially upheld Mr X’s complaint. Mr X asked the Council to carry out a stage two investigation soon after.
18. The IO completed their stage two investigation in December 2020. The IO noted the investigation had been delayed because it took three days to go through Mr X’s records, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the time taken to identify Council officers to speak to.
19. The Council issued its response in early March 2021. It upheld most of Mr X’s complaint. The Council apologised for the failings identified and said it would complete the following actions.
• Pay Mr X £4000. The Council said this was in recognition of the failings the stage two had identified around child protection, quality of social work assessments and care planning. It said it also took into account the fact that its failings meant Mr X had been at risk of harm and had lost out on opportunities he should have had. The Council confirmed it had decided to offer £4000 with reference to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and after seeking advice from colleagues.
• Given Mr X’s wish was to understand what went wrong in the Council’s care of him, it would arrange for Mr X to discuss his experiences and the complaint response with a Council officer.
20. The Council made the payment to Mr X in mid-March 2021.
21. In mid-2023, Mr X’s representative asked for a stage three response to his complaint. At the time, Mr X was unable to attend a panel hearing so the Council agreed it would delay the panel until after he was able to come.
22. In late April 2024, the stage three panel considered Mr X’s complaint. Mr X shared his views during the panel hearing and following the hearing, the panel upheld his complaint in full. It recommended the Council take the following action:
• Recommendation 1: Check if the Council had arranged to meet with Mr X to discuss his experiences as recommended at stage two;
• Recommendation 2: Share Mr X’s “story” with the children’s services team to improve practice;
• Recommendation 3: Consider “if there are other resolutions or remedies for experiences, specifically around restraints”;
• Recommendation 4: Ensure social workers record information accurately in assessments;
• Recommendation 5: Ensure a child’s case file accurately reflects all assessments and the social worker’s decision-making;
• Recommendation 6: Ensure social workers and other professionals involved with children have a professional curiosity;
• Recommendation 7: Offer Mr X a further financial remedy to recognise the impact of the parts of the complaint the panel had upheld. The panel also noted Mr X wanted the Council to fund his therapy and recommended it should consider doing so;
• Recommendation 8: Apologise to Mr X. The apology should be meaningful and reflective of his complaint and the failings identified, as well as reflecting how practice had moved on in the time since Mr X was in care.
23. The Council issued its final response to Mr X’s complaint in mid-May 2024. It said it agreed with the panel’s decision to uphold all parts of Mr X’s complaint. The Council apologised for each part of Mr X’s complaint which was now upheld. It also agreed to take the following action.
• Recommendation 1: Arrange support for Mr X so he could understand his experiences.
• Recommendation 2: Share his story with staff, providing Mr X agreed it could do so.
• Recommendation 7: Pay Mr X a further £1,000 to recognise his distress. The Council said it would work with Mr X to identify what therapeutic support was best for him.
• Recommendation 8: Arrange for Mr X to meet with a senior officer to discuss the Council’s final response to his complaint. It would then issue an apology.
24. The Council explained it would not take any action in response to recommendations 3-6 because, in the time since the events Mr X complained about, it had made significant improvements to its practice which meant the recommendations were not necessary.
25. Since the Council issued its final response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has made the following progress towards completing the recommendations.
• Recommendation 1: The Council noted in April 2025 that the offer of support for Mr X to understand his experiences was still available, but Mr X’s personal circumstances meant he had not accessed it yet.
• Recommendation 2: Mr X had not agreed for the senior officer to share the specifics of his case with staff as learning. The Council confirmed it had shared the key points from Mr X’s case with senior management in 2021.
• Recommendation 7: The Council paid Mr X £1,000 in May 2024. By April 2025 discussions about therapy for Mr X were ongoing. The Council told us that Mr X had asked for £20,000 worth of therapy from his private therapist. The Council said that before agreeing to fund therapy for Mr X, it wanted to ensure that the therapy it commissioned would be for the purpose of remedying the injustice its failings caused. To do this, it wanted professional advice on Mr X’s needs. It had asked him to pursue this by asking his GP to start with, which Mr X had not done and would not allow the Council to do on his behalf.
• Recommendation 8: The Council recorded it would issue an apology letter once a decision on therapy had been made.

Findings

26. The Council has fully upheld Mr X’s complaint under the statutory complaints procedure. I have seen no significant issues in how the Council carried out the procedure, so I have not reinvestigated Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s care of him. Instead, my investigation focuses on how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint.
27. The Council was at fault for delay responding to Mr X’s complaint at stage one. It took almost four months too long to complete the stage one response. While the Council gave COVID-19 as a reason for the delay, Mr X complained in January 2020. Had the Council not delayed, it would have issued its response by early February, six weeks before the first lockdown. The fault caused Mr X avoidable frustration.
28. The Council delayed issuing its stage two response by over six months which was also fault and caused Mr X additional frustration. It should have completed the stage two by early September. The IO gave some explanation for the delay in their investigation, which they completed in December 2020. However, the reasons do not justify such a long investigation. There was also no good reason for the Council to take a further three months to issue its response.
29. Mr X did not ask for a stage three response to his complaint until 2023, after the 20-working day deadline for asking for a stage three panel. Despite this, the Council accepted Mr X’s stage three request. The Council was not at fault for waiting until Mr X was available to attend the stage three panel hearing. It decided this with Mr X’s agreement and doing so meant Mr X was able to provide his views and evidence to the panel, which contributed to it upholding his complaint in full. There was a small delay in the Council issuing its final response, but this was not sufficient to find fault.
30. However, in issuing its final response, the Council set out its view on each of the panel’s findings. This was fault. The law sets out councils can only comment on the recommendations the stage three panel made, not its findings. This did not cause Mr X an injustice because the Council agreed with the panel that it should uphold his complaint in full.
31. Despite agreeing it would arrange support for Mr X to understand his experiences in care following the stage two investigation and again after the stage three panel (recommendation 1), the Council has not done so. While some of the delay is because of the impact of Mr X’s personal circumstances, it is evident some was due to the Council’s inaction. This was fault and caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
32. The Council was not at fault for not sharing Mr X’s ‘story’ with staff (recommendation 2). Doing so would have entailed releasing details of Mr X’s personal life, which it cannot do without Mr X’s consent. Mr X has not agreed to allow the Council to share his details. The Council has shared key learning points from Mr X’s stage two investigation with senior staff. This was appropriate, to ensure the Council learns from its mistakes without sharing Mr X’s personal information.
33. It is not clear if the stage three panel intended for recommendation 3 to relate to remedying the injustice Mr X experienced when he was wrongly restrained or improving current practice around restraints. Regardless, I am satisfied the Council properly considered how to remedy Mr X’s injustice in relation to restraints as part of its response to recommendation 7.
34. The Council appropriately considered the stage three panel’s recommendations about improving its practice (recommendations 3-6) and confirmed they were not necessary as the Council’s service had improved since Mr X was a child. There was no fault in how the Council came to that decision so I cannot question it.
35. Recommendation 7 related to financial compensation. Mr X feels the Council should pay him between £20,000 and £25,000. Part of his reason for complaining to the Ombudsman was to seek a larger financial remedy. However, the Ombudsman does not award damages or compensation, that is for the courts. The Council has paid Mr X a total of £5,000 to recognise the impact of its failings on him. It came to this sum with reference to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, the specific circumstances of Mr X’s complaint and after seeking advice from colleagues. The Council took relevant factors into account in deciding what to offer Mr X so it was not at fault. Therefore, I cannot question its decision.
36. Mr X also wants the Council to pay for around £20,000 of therapy. The Council wants more information on Mr X’s needs before it decides what therapy to fund. That is appropriate, so it can ensure it is only remedying the injustice caused by its failings. However, the Council has sought to do this by using the NHS and starting with Mr X’s GP. The wait time for mental health services in the NHS is significant and given the Council has accepted it may need to fund therapy for Mr X, it should have obtained professional advice on his needs without delay. Its failure to do so was fault. The fault caused Mr X significant frustration and uncertainty about whether, if the Council had not been at fault, it would have begun funding his therapy.
37. Although the Council apologised to Mr X in its stage three response letter, it agreed to make a further meaningful apology. It has not done so because it has not yet decided on whether to fund Mr X’s therapy. This was fault. The Council should have made the apology without delay. This caused Mr X further frustration.

Back to top

Action

38. The Council will complete the following actions within one month of the date of my final decision:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty he felt because of the faults identified in this decision. 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.
2. Send Mr X a separate apology in line with the recommendations made by the stage three panel.
3. Pay Mr X £800 in recognition of the frustration and uncertainty he experienced.
4. Commission an assessment of Mr X’s mental health needs, to determine what form of therapy Mr X needs, the length of course of treatment and the estimated cost of that treatment. The Council will then make a decision on what therapy it will fund for Mr X and tell the Ombudsman of its decision within two months of the date of the final decision.
39. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy Mr X’s injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman