Summary: Mr X complained about delay in processing his complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. We found the Council to be at fault that caused Mr X distress, time and trouble. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about delay in responding to his complaint about post-adoption support under the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
2. He says he has experienced distress, frustration and a potential delay in the provision of essential services for his children.

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. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. My investigation has focussed only on delay in the statutory children’s complaints procedure, because this was the subject of Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2025.
7. I am aware Mr X is dissatisfied with several other aspects of the Council’s complaint investigation, including its decision to split the stage three panel hearing because he was deemed an unreasonable complainant, and the consequential delay.
8. By law, we should allow councils the opportunity to respond to complaints in the first instance. If Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s final response to his complaint and related matters, he should complaint to the council first.

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

Relevant law and guidance

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

11. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services (Department for Education and Skills 2006 Getting the best from complaints: Social Care Complaints and Representations for Children, Young People and Others).
12. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution.
13. At stage 2 of the procedure, councils must appoint an investigating officer (IO) to carry out the investigation. The IO should be entirely independent from the council. There will also be an independent person (IP), who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. After the IO and IP have produced their reports, a adjudication officer (AO), a senior manager, considers them and prepares the councils response to the findings. This is the referred to as the adjudication.
14. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review by an independent panel (the Panel). The Panel’s role is to determine whether there were any flaws in the stage 2 investigation.
15. The timescales in working days for the procedure are:

• 10 days at stage one (with a further 10 days for more complex complaints or additional time if an advocate is required);
• 25 days at stage two (with maximum extension to 65 days);
• 20 days for the complainant to request a Review Panel;
• 30 days to meet and hold the Review Panel at stage three;
• 5 days for the Panel to issue its findings; and
• 15 days for the council to respond to the findings.

What happened

16. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “Analysis” section of this decision statement.
17. In November 2024, Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to provide specialist support for his adopted children. He strongly disagreed with the outcome of assessments carried out by the Council, as well as how they were carried out. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response, provided under stage one of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. He asked for his complaint to be investigated under stage two. The complaint’s terms of reference were set out by the IO in late January 2024. Mr X did not agree with these terms, nor with the Council’s decision to include an additional area of complaint that had been recently raised by him.
18. The outcome of the stage two investigation was sent to Mr X in early May 2025. His complaint was not upheld.
19. Mr X requested escalation to stage three on 8 May 2025. The Council attempted to arrange a panel, but due to the availability of panel members and Mr X, the earliest available date was 31 July 2025.
20. Concerned by this delay, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 June 2025.
21. In response to our enquiries, the Council accepted it took longer than 65 days to carry out the stage two investigation, but that the 65 days did not start until the terms of reference had been confirmed by the IO.

Analysis

22. The statutory time scales have not been met in this case. This is fault.

Stage two

23. The statutory guidance says stage two investigations should be completed within 65 working days. Mr X made his request on 20 December 2024. The Council issued its decision on 7 May 2025, a total of 94 working days.
24. The Council says the terms of reference were not confirmed until 28 January 2025, reducing to time taken to 70 days. It argues it is from this date that the clock started to run. Mr X strongly disagrees with this interpretation of the statutory guidance.
25. The guidance states that where the complainant amends the written record of his complaint, the stage two timescale will start from the date the complaint is finalised. In this case, Mr X did not seek, or agree to, have an additional point added to his original complaint. This was a decision by the Council. Whilst I accept the inclusion of a related complaint was done to ensure efficiency of resources, I am not persuaded this allowed for the timeline to start at the later date. For this reason, my assessment is the stage two investigation took 29 working days, longer than it should have, causing Mr X distress, time and trouble.

Stage three

26. Mr X contacted the Ombudsman in early June 2025 because of delay by the Council in arranging the stage three review panel. He made his request on 8 May 2025. Under the timescales set out in the guidance, the Council had until 20 June 2025 to convene the panel hearing. The Council says the earliest possible date, due to the limited availability of the necessary participants, including Mr X, was 31 July 2025. However, the records show Mr X was only unavailable for one and a half days every week, so I am not persuaded this was a significant reason for the delay.
27. The guidance does not allow for an extension of time due to the unavailability of panel participants. For this reason, I find the delay of here was fault. This caused Mr X further distress and frustration.
28. I have not considered the subsequent delay caused by the additional panel hearing that took place in August because this is inextricably linked to the Council’s decision to hold a split hearing because Mr X was deemed an unreasonable complainant. This matter is outside the scope of this investigation.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise to Mr X.
2. Pay Mr X £125. This payment is in line with the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies that specifies £50 per month of delay in the statutory process.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the personal injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman