Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his son, Y’s care. The Council was at fault for incorrectly making an early referral and giving Mr X confusing information about panel attendees. This caused Mr X frustration. The Council has agreed to arrange a stage three panel to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with respite for his son, Y. He says the Council:
1. failed to provide funding for adequate respite;
2. wrongly went back on a decision to provide adequate respite;
3. wrongly asked for proof of care costs;
4. failed to share accurate child in need meeting minutes; and
5. ignored his complaints and poorly communicated with him.
2. Mr X says this caused the family significant distress and a family breakdown. He also says he lost his job due to having to care for Y on a 2:1 basis.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. 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)
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly asked for proof of care costs which is complaint point (c).
8. This is because I have seen no evidence that Mr X complained to the Council about this matter. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to notify the Council of this complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply.
9. I have explained why I have not investigated the remainder of Mr X’s complaint in paragraph 29.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. 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

Legislation and guidance

Statutory complaints procedures - the three-stage process

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. 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.
14. 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 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.
15. 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.

Early referrals to the Ombudsman

16. 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.
17. We might accept a complaint early if, for example:

• The complaint was solely that the council had delayed completing or failed to complete recommendations agreed at stage one or two; or
• There was such a significant breakdown in trust between the complainant and the council that it would make it difficult to complete the complaints procedure, even if the council were to use a new IO and IP.

Getting the best from complaints ‘the guidance’

18. 3.10.2 As a general rule, the Review Panel should not reinvestigate the complaints, nor should it be able to consider any substantively new complaints that have not been first considered at Stage 2.
19. 3.15.3 The Adjudicating Officer should attend as the authority’s representative if he has rejected any of the Investigating Officers findings at Stage 2. Where he has accepted all of them, it is usually acceptable to delegate this responsibility.
20. 3.15.4 The Chair should make the final decision on attendees (including asking the local authority to make specific members of staff available to provide specialist advice or opinion). He should also decide whether additional policies or procedures should be circulated with the Panel’s papers.

What happened?

21. In June 2024, Mr X complained to the Council about several matters relating to the care of his son, Y.
22. The Council responded by completing the first two stages of the statutory complaint procedure.
23. Following the completion of stage two, the Council agreed to escalate the complaint to stage three of the process. Mr X emailed the Council in June 2025, he said he:

• disagreed with the proposed meeting date as this gave him inadequate time to prepare for the meeting and submit evidence needed;
• wanted to submit new evidence about the Council’s maladministration, including matters that had taken place since the stage two investigation; and
• did not want the AO to attend the meeting, as he was concerned about impartiality. He also mentioned concerns about other Council officers attending the meeting.

24. The Council replied to Mr X shortly after, it said the stage two AO must attend the stage three meeting, as attendance is mandatory because the independent panel members or chair may have questions for them.
25. It also noted that the purpose of the panel was not to reinvestigate Mr X’s complaints or consider new issues, but instead review the stage one and two investigations. The Council agreed for Mr X to send further evidence but noted the chair may not accept information which should have formed part of the stage two process.
26. The Council wrote to Mr X again on 11 June 2025 to say it intended to send an early referral to the Ombudsman because of Mr X’s objections about the panel members and his request to submit new information. It said because of this, a stage three panel would not adequately address his concerns.

Findings

27. The Council made an early referral to us. In addition to valid early referrals, the Ombudsman can choose to accept complaints that haven’t completed the statutory procedure, in limited circumstances. This includes where there has been a significant breakdown in trust between the complainant and the council that it would make it difficult to complete the complaints procedure, even if the council were to use a new IO and IP.
28. The Council was at fault for making an early referral to us when the case does not meet the criteria in the statutory guidance. Although the Council sought advice from the Ombudsman about this early referral, having considered the circumstances of this case, I do not agree that there has been such a significant breakdown in relationship between the Council and Mr X to justify us accepting the complaint early. The fault caused Mr X frustration. To remedy this, the Council should arrange and hold a stage three panel.
29. 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 councils to complete the complaints procedure. Therefore, I have not investigated Mr X’s substantive complaints about the Council’s actions.
30. I also note that it is not for Mr X to decide who should attend the stage three panel, this is a matter for the chair of the panel to decide. The Council told Mr X it was mandatory for the AO to attend the panel meeting, but this is confusing to Mr X as it suggests that it is mandatory in all cases. The attendance of the AO would only be mandatory when they have rejected any of the IO findings at stage two. In this case, the AO agreed with the findings, and so their attendance would be at the discretion of the chair. The Council decided that the AO needed to attend the panel meeting after considering all of the information. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make but I find fault in the wording of the Council’s explanation to Mr X. This caused Mr X frustration, but the Council is entitled to invite the AO to the new stage three meeting.
31. The Council was following the guidance when it told Mr X it could not consider new issues at stage three, which includes matters that happened after the stage two investigation. There was no fault in the Council’s actions here. If Mr X remains dissatisfied with matters not already included in stage one and two of the investigation, he should follow the Council’s complaint process.
32. If Mr X disagrees with progressing to stage three, then the Council are within its rights to close the complaint. If Mr X remains dissatisfied after any such stage three, he can approach us again and ask us to consider investigating his complaint.

Back to top

Action

33. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:

• agree a date with Mr X for a stage three panel meeting. The Council should give Mr X three different possible dates and times for this to take place.

34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman