Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with the support of their family. Based on current evidence, there was no fault in the way it completed the Children Act complaints procedure, and so we will not investigate their substantive complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council:
1. failed to provide full and accurate minutes of child-in-need meetings in a timely manner;
2. failed to help with their son, Y’s, disability living allowance review;
3. bullied them;
4. behaved unprofessionally in a meeting in July 2024;
5. refused to include certain comments about Y in his EHC Plan;
6. withheld information from a parental meeting before a SENDIST hearing;
7. failed to include them and their independent social worker in an online meeting;
8. incorrectly said it would end Y’s mentoring if they chose to end a child in need plan;
9. failed to make reasonable adjustments for Mr and Mrs X;
10. failed to allow them to review the stage two statement of complaint;
11. wrongly removed respite services; and
12. wrongly redacted information.
2. Mr and Mrs X say this caused them and their family significant distress. They express the lack of reasonable adjustments have caused Mrs X’s health conditions to deteriorate. They also say they have had to employ an independent social worker which has caused financial 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. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have not investigated Mr and Mrs X’s complaint that the Council wrongly removed respite services. This is because this did not form part of the statutory complaint process that I have investigated. This matter has been considered by a different Ombudsman investigation.
8. I have investigated the Council’s actions in the statutory complaint procedure.
9. I have not investigated Mr and Mrs X’s substantive complaints. I have explained why in paragraph 45.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Section 17 – Child in need (CIN)

12. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
13. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

Statutory complaints procedures - the three-stage process

14. 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.
15. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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. The purpose of the stage three panel is to consider the adequacy of the Stage 2 investigation and its findings.
19. The Guidance notes panels are designed to “obtain any further information and advice that may help resolve the complaint to all parties’ satisfaction” and then “to reach findings on each of the complaints being reviewed”.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

20. 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.
21. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

What happened?

The Council’s investigation into Mr and Mrs X’s complaint

22. This section of the decision statement is not intended to be a full account of everything that happened, nor does it refer to all the records I have considered. It is a summary of key events
23. In August 2024, Mr and Mrs X made a stage one complaint to the Council about some of the issues noted in this complaint. The Council did not uphold any of these complaints in its reply on in September.
24. Mr and Mrs X were dissatisfied with the Council’s response and asked it to escalate the complaint to stage two shortly after this.
25. The Council appointed an IO in early October. The IO contacted Mr and Mrs X the following week and offered several dates for an initial meeting. At Mr and Mrs X’s request, they had their initial meeting at the end of October.
26. The IO drafted the statement of complaint and sent this to Mr and Mrs X at the end of November. Mr and Mrs X asked for time to consider this. Mrs X responded to the IO at the start of January 2025, expressing she could not consider the statement of complaint because of personal issues and that the IO should proceed with the investigation.
27. The statement of complaint focussed on most of the same issues as this complaint.
28. The IO completed the stage two report in March, upholding that:

• the Council had delayed in issuing CIN meeting minutes, but expressed that Mr and Mrs X had asked for a summary of meetings, instead of full minutes and so it was reasonable that some information may be left out of the requested summaries;
• Mr and Mrs X felt bullied by Council staff and there is a reasonable expectation on social workers to consider the impact of their comments and to be clear about the rights of parents; and
• there would have been alternative methods of providing support, including mentoring, if Mr and Mrs X elected to end the CIN plan, which the Council should have been clearer about.

29. They did not uphold any of the other complaints. The IO made six recommendations which included an apology, the Council considering ways to reduce delays in providing meeting minutes and a communication plan with Mr and Mrs X.
30. The IP agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations.
31. The AO wrote to Mr and Mrs X at the end of June, noting they agreed with all of IO’s findings except for two. The AO disagreed that evidence showed Council officers bullied Mr and Mrs X, because the evidence did not support the definition of bullying.
32. They also expressed there was no evidence that any of the behaviour towards Mr and Mrs X was intentional. The AO also noted the social worker and parent relationship, by its very nature contains elements of imbalance of power, but there was no evidence anyone abused that power.
33. The AO also decided there was no evidence of any unprofessional behaviour and that complaints about this matter should be addressed by Social Work England and not the statutory complaint process.
34. The AO considered and agreed to all of the IO’s recommendations.
35. At the start of July, Mr and Mrs X wrote to the Council noting they had been advised by the Ombudsman to progress to stage three of the statutory procedure. Mr and Mrs X also complained the Council sent them a redacted stage two report, which was unacceptable.
36. The stage three panel took place in October. The chair noted Mr and Mrs X and their representatives could raise any concerns they had about the stage two investigation. Mr and Mrs X raised the issue of the redacted stage two report. In response, the panel explained its information governance team had agreed to redacting several paragraphs that contained sensitive information about organisational process.
37. Mr and Mrs X also expressed they did not have the opportunity to agree with the statement of complaint at stage two. In response to this, the IO expressed that Mr and Mrs X had the opportunity but had told him they were unable to review due to personal issues.
38. The panel disagreed with some of the stage two findings including:

• Partially upholding that the Council could have done more to support Mr and Mrs X with Y’s benefit application disagreeing with the decision at stage two not to uphold this;
• Agreed with the AO that there was no evidence that Council officers bullied Mr and Mrs X. The panel noted the IO should not have upheld the complaint.
• Upheld that the Council delayed in providing Mr and Mrs X with a draft EHC plan and CIN minutes, but decided there was no evidence of failings in professional practice; and
• There was evidence that the Council had assessed Y’s needs and noted concerns about his masking and unregulated behaviour in the EHC plan and so it did not uphold any complaints about this matter.

39. It recommended the Council apologise to Mr and Mrs X, consider ways to reduce delays in providing meeting minutes and produce a communication plan to detail how it will communicate with Mr and Mrs X in line with their reasonable adjustment requests.
40. The Panel also considered Mr and Mrs X’s request for a financial remedy but decided this was not warranted based on the evidence presented. It noted Mr and Mrs X could pursue a formal claim for compensation if they wished but this would be separate to the complaint process.
41. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X in November with its view of the stage three panel meeting. It agreed with the panel’s decisions and recommendations and confirmed the following complaints were upheld or partially upheld:

• The Council had delayed in sending Mr and Mrs X CIN minutes;
• The Council could have done more to support Mr and Mrs X with Y’s disability living allowance review, but was not responsible for the delays in this being awarded;
• The Council did not hold a CIN meeting in October 2024 properly;
• The Council incorrectly told Mr and Mrs X that if they ended the CIN plan then Y’s mentoring would also end and failed to tell them there might be other ways in which this service could be commissioned;
• There were some issues with the Council drafting Y’s EHC plan.

42. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X at the end December to explain it had completed all the recommendations. It also detailed a ten-point communication plan that it would follow to ensure it had taken account of their reasonable adjustment requests.

Findings

The Council’s investigations into Mr and Mrs X’s complaint

43. If a complaint has already been through the second stage of the Children Act complaints procedure, this means they have already had access to an independent investigation. Consequently, we will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed.
44. I have considered the documents from Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, and I note that:
• All parts of the complaint were considered and addressed by the Council.
• The independent investigation report refers to relevant procedure and case records. These case records support the investigator’s findings.
• The Council considered Mr and Mrs X’s desired outcomes and explained its view about these.
• Mr and Mrs X did not complain directly about any issues with the statutory complaint procedure, apart from the redaction of the stage two report and that they had not agreed to the statement of complaint.
• There do not appear to be any obvious errors in the Council’s handling of the complaint which undermine its findings.
45. Because of this, I have found no fault in the Council’s handling of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. This means there is no reason to conduct another independent investigation into the issues they raise.
46. I have considered Mr and Mrs X’s concern that they did not agree to the statement of complaint at stage two. The IO gave them the opportunity to consider and comment on the draft statement of complaint at the end of November 2024. Mrs X emailed the IO at the beginning of January 2025, expressing that she could not consider this matter because of personal issues and asked the IO to proceed with the investigation.
47. I also note that there is no evidence that Mr and Mrs X raised any concerns about the statement of complaint throughout the remainder of the process. For these reasons, I find no fault in the actions of the Council about this matter. The IO gave Mr and Mrs X over five weeks to consider the statement which is sufficient.
48. Mr and Mrs X also raised concerns that the Council sent them a redacted version of the stage two IO investigation report. The Council explained it made the decision to redact this document because it contained sensitive organisational process information. I have seen a copy of the redacted and unredacted versions of the report. There is no evidence in the redacted version that persuades me that the statutory process was flawed. For this reason, I will not investigate this matter further. If Mr and Mrs X remain unhappy with the redacted version of the report, they have the option of approaching the Information Commissioner about the matter.
49. Mr and Mrs X also told the Ombudsman they had evidence that the IO did not see that would have likely affected their findings. I have looked at this information, and I do not consider there is any evidence which persuades me that the statutory process was flawed and so I find no fault. If Mr and Mrs X had this evidence at any point throughout the statutory procedure, they had the opportunity to share this with Council or investigating officers, but there is no evidence they did so.

The Council’s recommendations

50. I have also considered whether the Council’s remedies properly recognise the injustice it has caused Mr and Mrs X and whether these were carried out without delay.
51. The Council completed all of the recommendations within a reasonable timeframe. This includes sending an apology to Mr and Mrs X in July 2025 and completing all of the remaining reconditions by December 2025. I find no fault in the actions of the Council in implementing the recommendations.
52. In relation to whether the remedies properly recognise the injustice it caused, I have firstly considered what that injustice was. The faults identified by the procedure broadly relate to delays and the Council sharing inaccurate information. This likely caused Mr and Mrs X frustration and uncertainty.
53. The Council has already apologised for this. The stage three panel considered Mr and Mrs X’s request for a financial remedy and decided the injustice caused by its faults did not warrant such a payment. I consider this decision to be in line with our guidance on remedies and agree that the apology was a sufficient remedy for the frustration and uncertainty caused.
54. I recognise that Mr and Mrs X feel the impact of the Council’s actions went beyond frustration and uncertainty and caused them significant financial and emotional distress and Mrs X further ill health.
55. However, to recommend a further remedy, I must first find fault by the Council. I do not consider there to have been any fault in the statutory process. The Council evidenced that it recognised the injustice caused by its faults and has already taken steps to remedy both the personal injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X and service improvements. In the absence of any additional fault, I cannot say the wider impact described by Mr and Mrs X was caused by maladministration by the Council. We also cannot make clinical findings and so I am unable to make judgements on personal injury complaints, which the courts are best placed to rule on.

Back to top

Decision

56. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman