Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s handling of child protection matters regarding his children. He also complained about delays in the Council’s complaint-handling through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. There was fault by the Council. It did not follow statutory timescales when considering Mr B’s complaint. Because of this, Mr B suffered distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B, make a symbolic payment, and progress stage three without further delay.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of child protection matters regarding his children. He also complains there have been delays by the Council in its consideration of his complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure.
2. Mr B says the Council’s actions have impacted his health, caused him distress and frustration, and he has lost trust in the Council. He would like a full investigation of the Council’s actions and proper training to be given to social workers.

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. 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 read Mr B’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
7. I considered the complaint documentation as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr B 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

Children’s statutory complaint procedure

9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. 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.
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. 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.
14. The statutory children’s complaint 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 complaint procedure before we will consider whether there were any flaws in how the Council investigated their concerns. I have therefore not investigated the substantive issues of Mr B’s complaint of the Council’s handling of child protection matters regarding his children.

Back to top

What happened

15. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
16. Mr B complained to the Council in late December 2024. The Council sent its stage one complaint response to Mr B in late January 2025.
17. The Council says Mr B asked it to consider the complaint at stage two in March 2025. It says Mr B arranged to meet with a senior member of Council staff in April 2025 and he told the Council he would confirm if he wished to continue with the complaint after the meeting. The Council says Mr B confirmed in mid-May 2025 he wished to proceed with the complaint. Mr B’s complaint was significantly amended to include further points of complaint. The Council says Mr B confirmed the matters he wished to complain about in early June 2025. The Council wrote to Mr B with the outcome of the stage two investigation in early October 2025.
18. Mr B asked the Council for a stage three review later that month. He also asked the Council if he could add further complaint points and repeat the stage two consideration. The Council told Mr B it could not reinvestigate the complaint or consider new complaint matters at stage three. Mr B told us in January 2026 he has not received a stage three response from the Council.

Back to top

Analysis

19. The statutory complaint procedure has not yet been completed. I have therefore not investigated the substantive matters of Mr B’s complaint or considered whether there have been any flaws in how the Council has investigated Mr B’s concerns so far. My consideration of the complaint has focused on the Council’s delays in its handling of Mr B’s complaint, with the aim of getting the statutory complaint procedure re-engaged and completed.
20. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint at stage one just outside of the statutory timeframe. The Council should have then completed stage two within 65 working days of Mr B’s stage two request. In this case, as Mr B’s complaint was amended to include further points of complaint, the start date of stage two is the date the stage two complaint was finalised. The Council says Mr B confirmed the matters he wished to complain about on 9 June 2025. As such, this is the start date of stage two. So, the Council should have sent its stage two response by 8 September 2025. The Council did not do this. It sent its stage two response to Mr B on 7 October 2025. I recognise the Council says the complexity and volume of Mr B’s complaints contributed to the delay. Statutory guidance already allows for an extension of up to 65 working days where required, and the Council exceeded this timeframe. This was fault.
21. On receipt of Mr B’s stage three request, the Council should have held the stage three panel within 30 working days. Following the panel, it should have issued a stage three response to Mr B within 20 working days. So, the Council should have completed stage three by 7 January 2026. The Council did not do this. This was fault.
22. Mr B told us on 13 January 2026 he has not received a response from the Council since he sent it his stage three request. The Council told us when Mr B asked for his complaint to be considered at stage three, he also asked if he could add further complaint points and if the complaint could be reconsidered at stage two. The Council says it responded to Mr B’s query as outlined in paragraph 18 but says it did not receive a response from Mr B confirming he still wished to proceed with his complaint at stage three. Mr B did not contribute to the delay at stage three as the Council suggests. The Council’s response to the query Mr B raised within his stage three request did not ask for Mr B to respond to confirm he still wished to proceed to stage three. As he had already submitted a stage three request in his prior email to the Council, the Council should not have allowed matters to drift. The Council has acknowledged it should not have assumed Mr B did not wish to pursue his complaint in the absence of a response to its email. I agree with this.
23. The Council’s failure to follow statutory timeframes and complete the procedure on time has caused roughly a six-week delay, at the time of Mr B bringing his complaint to us. This fault has caused distress and frustration to Mr B. I have made recommendations below to reflect this.
24. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
25. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.

Back to top

Action

26. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr B by the fault I have identified, within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr B for the distress and frustration caused by the Council’s delays in the statutory complaint procedure. This apology should be made in line with our guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Mr B £75 for the distress and frustration caused to him by the Council’s complaint-handling delays.
• Hold a stage three panel. The Council should then issue its stage three response to Mr B within 20 working days of the panel. In the stage three response, the Council should tell Mr B he can complain to us after stage three is completed if he wishes to do so.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I uphold Mr B’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman