Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to involve him properly when it delivered support to his child. Mr X also complained about how the Council handled his complaint. We found the Council was at fault. Mr X has not had the opportunity to have his complaint properly considered via the children’s statutory complaints procedure. This caused undue delay and frustration for Mr X. The Council will start stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure without delay. It will also apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly include him in his child’s Child in Need (CIN) intervention. He complained about the conduct of social workers involved in his child’s care.
2. Mr X also complained about the Councils failure to handle his complaint properly.
3. Mr X said fault by the Council left his child in an unsafe situation, and he is concerned about their ongoing welfare as a result. He also said he has experienced discrimination due to fault by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
6. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I investigated how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. I did not investigate the substantive complaint made by Mr X.
8. The children’s statutory 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. 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

Law and guidance

11. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need (CIN) plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review child in need plans regularly.
12. 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.
13. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
14. 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.
15. Councils can refuse to consider a complaint if a complainant says they intend to take legal action or if investigating a complaint could prejudice concurrent court proceedings. However, after the proceedings have ended, a complainant can resubmit the complaint for the council to consider.

What happened here

16. We issued a decision about a complaint made by Mr X, earlier in 2025. We found the Council denied Mr X the right to have his complaint heard via the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
17. Following our contact with it, the Council agreed to promptly process Mr X’s complaint via the procedure. This was welcomed.
18. Within a few weeks the Council completed stage one of the procedure.
19. Mr X was unhappy with the outcome. He asked the Council to progress to stage two.
20. The Council told Mr X he could not progress to stage two of the procedure. The Council said this was because the matters had been considered at stage one and a stage two investigation would not add anything further. The Council referred to the earlier investigation by the Ombudsman. It said it had fulfilled the Ombudsman’s recommendation to start the procedure. It referred to the remaining matters as private matters to seek legal advice about, should Mr X choose to. It told Mr X how he could raise new concerns about his child should he have any.
21. Mr X complained again to the Ombudsman. He said he was not happy with the outcome of stage one, and he wanted stage two of the procedure to be carried out.

My findings

22. Councils can only refuse to consider complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure in limited circumstances. They cannot refuse to escalate complaints to stage two or three.
23. Guidance says once a complaint has been completed at stage one, councils must proceed to stage two of the children’s statutory complaint procedure if the complainant requests this.
24. Our earlier investigation recommended the Council respond to Mr X via the children’s statutory complaints procedure. It had to begin the procedure at stage one.
25. Following this, the Council should have accepted Mr X’s request to move to stage two of the procedure. This stage is important because of its independence from stage one. Mr X should be afforded the opportunity of an independent investigation.
26. Failure to progress Mr X’s complaint to stage two of the procedure was fault by the Council. This fault caused unnecessary delay and frustration for Mr X.

Back to top

Action

27. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from fault by the Council, within four weeks of a final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an Effective Apology. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £150. This is £50 for every month there was a delay in progressing to stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure from February 2025.
• Start stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure without further delay. Timescales set out in the statutory guidance ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’ should be adhered to at stage two and should Mr X wish to further escalate the complaint, at stage three. If the investigation takes longer than 25 days at stage two, Mr X should be informed of the reasons why and it should take no longer than 65 days to complete.
28. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman