Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services as we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy than already provided.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council failed to provide the support her family needs and delayed in replying to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complained to the Council in April 2025 about the level of support her family received. Her child, Y, has disabilities. Miss X wanted the support increased, and the Council proposed to reduce it.
7. The Council considered the complaint within its Children Act statutory complaints procedure.
8. Miss X requested a stage two, following a stage one reply in May 2025. The Council completed this by mid September 2025. In doing so it recommended a new assessment for Y, and for Miss X as a carer. It also agreed to reimburse some costs Miss X had incurred. The Council has since confirmed to us it has completed the assessments. The Council does not propose increasing support. Some promised payments have been delayed but are now being processed.

Analysis

9. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services.
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. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Here the Council proposed not to hold a stage three review panel but to refer the case to us.
17. At stage two the Council upheld all limbs of her complaint. And it agreed to five out of six of the recommendations Miss X requested at stage two.
18. 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.
19. Our investigation is unlikely to achieve more. A reassessment of need is the most likely recommendation we would make. The Council has done this. Its reassessment does not agree with Miss X’s wishes. However, it has assessed her case in line with normal practice and has reached a decision it is entitled to reach. We are not an appeal body.
20. The short delay in completing the stage two is not significant enough to justify a remedy for it. While the reassessment also appears to have been delayed, given it did not recommend any increase in support any injustice which is a direct consequence of the delay is not significant enough to justify a remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to significantly improve on the Council’s remedy already provided.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman