Summary: We have found that both councils – Westmorland & Furness and Cumberland – caused delays in their handling of Mr X’s linked complaints about children’s social care. Both will now apologise to Mr X and will take action to improve their respective services. Cumberland will also make a symbolic payment which recognises
Mr X’s likely distress.

The complaints

1. Mr X says both councils refused to investigate his complaints about the children’s social care service of their predecessor authority, Cumbria County Council.
2. Mr X says the councils’ refusals have caused him 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 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(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 both councils as well as relevant guidance.
7. Mr X and both councils had opportunities to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Government guidance

8. The statutory guidance, ‘Getting the best from complaints’, sets out a three-stage procedure for complaints about certain aspects of children’s social care. I refer to this as ‘the statutory procedure’.
9. Young people who were formerly in local authority care can use this procedure to complain about the support they received.
10. Councils have 10 working days to respond to stage 1 complaints.
11. Councils have 25 working days to respond to stage two complaints. However, in certain circumstances (such as if the complaint is particularly complicated), this can be extended to a maximum of 65 working days. If the complaint is submitted in writing, the ‘start date’ is when the complaint is made.
12. It is good practice if, when an investigating officer begins their investigation at stage 2 of the statutory procedure, they clarify the complaint (and all its individual parts) and produce a written record.
13. Councils have discretion in deciding whether to consider complaints under the statutory procedure, if to do so would prejudice criminal proceedings.
14. If a council decides not to consider (or continue considering) a complaint because of concurrent criminal proceedings, it must write to the complainant explaining the reason for its decision.
15. Within a year of the concurrent proceedings being concluded, the complainant may resubmit their complaint to the council.

What happened

16. In 2023, Cumbria County Council was abolished. Its functions were transferred to two new authorities: Westmorland & Furness Council and Cumberland Council.
17. In January 2025, Mr X complained to Westmorland & Furness. He said:
• While living at a residential school in its area in 2019, he suffered physical assaults, and was consequently injured, by members of staff.
• He reported this to multiple social workers at the time, but Cumbria County Council took no meaningful action.
• His reports were escalated to Cumbria County Council’s local authority designated officer (LADO) – who managed allegations against people who worked with children. But they were not properly dealt with.
18. Westmorland & Furness refused to accept Mr X’s complaint. It said the events were too old. It also said it had not employed the school’s staff and would not be able to access Mr X’s records because he had not been in its care. In February, it referred the complaint to Cumberland.
19. In March, both councils met with the Police to discuss a coordinated response to the complaint. Cumberland agreed that:
• The complaint was not about the school itself, it was about “how the incidents were dealt with by Cumbria County Council staff when [they] were reported to staff within the council at that time”.
• The complaint was separate to the Police investigation and would be dealt with under stage 2 of the statutory procedure.
• Its investigating officer would “[need] to clearly frame the investigation they are undertaking to ensure there is no confusion on what is being investigated”.
20. In early April, Cumberland wrote to Mr X and said it would start an investigation. It told him it would not consider any allegations against the school. It would only look at complaints about whether the Council followed due process.
21. Cumberland’s investigating officer first contacted Mr X in early May. Mr X told her:

I fully understand that incidents at the school itself are under police investigation, and I am not asking you to investigate those directly. What I am asking … is for you to investigate how Cumberland Council responded to my reports of those incidents … This complaint is not about the criminal liability of [the] School staff – it is about the council’s safeguarding duty …

22. Following this, Cumberland told Mr X that it would no longer investigate his complaint, because doing so could prejudice the Police investigation. It says it changed its mind because Mr X had requested it investigate matters “that could potentially stray into the parameters of the criminal investigation”.
23. In June, after Mr X complained to us, we asked Westmorland & Furness to reconsider its refusal to look at his complaint, as there appeared to be errors in its view that it was not the responsible authority.
24. Westmorland & Furness changed its mind and agreed it would investigate Mr X’s complaint about the LADO (with Cumberland investigating the rest). However, like Cumberland, it said it would wait for the outcome of the Police investigation.
25. In September, after I made enquiries of both councils, they responded:
• Cumberland told me that it had changed its mind, and it will now investigate “the points [of complaint] which are in scope”. It will be contacting Mr X about this once it has decided what the investigation will look like.
• Westmorland & Furness told me that it still believed a consideration of Mr X’s LADO complaint could prejudice the Police investigation. It said interviewing witnesses could lead to “duplicated, disputed or contradictory evidence to that gathered by Police Officers”. It also said that, as its investigating officer would not have access to the same information as the Police, this could lead to “contradictory outcomes”.

My findings

26. We cannot tell a council whether its statutory complaint investigation would – or would not – prejudice a Police investigation. Instead, we must focus on whether there was procedural fault in its decision-making.

Cumberland Council

27. Cumberland did not decide whether to investigate Mr X’s complaint for around eight weeks after receiving it. Councils only have roughly 13 weeks to consider complex stage 2 complaints under the statutory procedure (and two weeks at stage 1). Even with the cross-border complexity of Mr X’s complaint in mind, this was still a delay, for which the Council was at fault.
28. The Council’s decision that it would investigate the complaint at stage 2, but that its investigating officer would be robust in setting limitations on the investigation, was not unreasonable. It was made in consultation with the Police and recognised that, in producing formal written records of the individual parts of complaints, investigating officers have the power to set appropriate limitations.
29. However, the Council’s subsequent decision to pause the complaint investigation was a direct contradiction of what it had agreed in its meeting with the Police. It is unclear why all of Mr X’s complaint had become unsuitable for investigation, or why – as had previously been agreed – the investigating officer could not have simply excluded any parts of the complaint which would have been prejudicial to the Police.
30. This inconsistency caused a delay to the Council’s eventual decision – which was to revert back to what it had originally agreed and investigate the complaint. This inconsistency and delay amounted to fault by the Council.
31. Mr X likely suffered uncertainty and distress. Below, I make recommendations to address this.

Westmorland & Furness Council

32. Part of Westmorland & Furness’ reasoning for initially rejecting Mr X’s complaint was that it was not the responsible authority and could not access records.
33. The Council’s view that it would not have access to Mr X’s care records was not unreasonable, and, consequently, its decision to forward most of the complaint to Cumberland was the correct one.
34. However, as Westmorland & Furness is a successor authority to Cumbria County Council, and as the school was located in the area which subsequently became Westmorland & Furness, it inherited responsibility for (and safeguarding records made by) the Cumbria LADO in relation to the school.
35. This means the Council’s decision to reject the complaint Mr X made specifically about the LADO was partly based on an incorrect analysis, for which it was at fault.
36. The Council did eventually change its mind, and it agreed to investigate the complaint about the LADO (with Cumberland investigating the rest). But the delay in the Council making this decision likely caused Mr X uncertainty and distress. Below, I make a recommendation to address this.
37. The Council then decided it would pause its investigation until the Police had finished theirs. It said it would notify Mr X of this, but it did not do so. It says this was because of the ongoing Ombudsman investigation.
38. As the statutory guidance requires councils to tell complainants in writing when they pause a complaint investigation, and as this is unaffected by any Ombudsman involvement, the Council’s failure to write to Mr X means it was at fault.
39. However, as LADOs are involved with allegations – including criminal allegations – against people who work with children, the Council’s decision to pause its investigation was not obviously unreasonable.
40. With this in mind, I have found there to be no fault in the decision. Mr X will need to pursue his complaint with Westmorland & Furness once the Police investigation is concluded.
    
    
     

Back to top

Action

41. Within four weeks, Cumberland Council has agreed to:
• Start its investigation of Mr X’s complaint under stage 2 of the statutory complaints procedure.
• Apologise to him for the delay in starting its investigation of his complaint.
• Make a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise his likely distress from the delay.
42. Within the same timeframe, Westmorland & Furness Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the delay in deciding to how to handle his LADO complaint, and for the failure to notify him, in writing, that it would pause its investigation.
43. Within three months, both councils have agreed to work together to agree an approach which can be used in future cases when one or both receive a children’s social care complaint about Cumbria County Council which potentially falls under the remit of both Cumberland and Westmorland & Furness. This approach will aim to eliminate delays. It will then be shared with relevant staff working in complaint handling at both councils.
44. Both councils will provide us with evidence they have done these things.

Notes on recommended action

45. Cumberland’s symbolic payment is intended to recognise delays up to the date of this decision statement, and should not, therefore, be seen as a remedy for any subsequent complaint handling delays.
46. I have not recommended Westmorland & Furness make a symbolic payment to Mr X because, although it caused a delay, this ultimately had no impact on its consideration of his complaint (which will need to wait until the outcome of the Police investigation).

Back to top

Decision

47. Both councils were at fault, and Mr X suffered injustice, which they will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman