Summary: The Council considered Mrs X’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaints procedure without fault but it failed to complete the recommended actions it agreed to. Mrs X’s complaint was about the Council’s failure to provide adequate respite for her disabled children. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mrs X £500 and carry out the recommendations without delay to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s investigation into her concerns about the Council’s failure to provide adequate respite for her disabled children.
2. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. However, she was unhappy with the outcome. Mrs X said the Council had failed to carry out most of the recommendations.
3. Mrs X said the matter caused distress, frustration and uncertainty as their needs have gone unmet for longer than necessary.

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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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)
7. 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant law and guidance

Statutory complaints procedure

10. 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.
11. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
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. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
16. 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.
17. 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.

Children in need

18. The Children Act 1989, section 17, requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. All disabled children are regarded as ‘children in need’ and entitled to an assessment under section 17.
19. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act (CSDPA) 1970, section 2, requires councils, when undertaking an assessment of a child under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, to consider whether it is necessary to provide support of the type referred to in section 2.
20. Services which can be provided under section 2 CSDPA include:

• practical assistance in the home including home based short breaks / respite care;
• recreational / educational facilities including community based short breaks; and
• travel and other assistance.

21. If a council is satisfied it is ‘necessary’ to provide support services under section 2 of the CSDPA then services must be provided regardless of the council’s resources.
22. Assessments should take account of the needs of the whole family. While some services may be offered directly to the disabled child, services may also be offered under section 17 to parents or siblings.
23. The Children Act 1989 (Schedule 2 paragraph 96)(1)(c)) and Breaks for Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011 requires councils to provide a range of services designed to assist family carers of disabled children to continue to provide care, or to do so more effectively, by giving them breaks from caring. These services must include a range of daytime care, overnight care and leisure activities. This range of services must be set out in a ‘short breaks statement’ and include details of any eligibility criteria.
24. The Children Act 1989 (as amended by the Children and Families Act 2014) places specific duties on councils to assess the needs of carers with parental responsibility for disabled children as well as young carers. Councils have an obligation to assess parent carers on the ‘appearance of need’ (Children Act 1989, section 17ZD/E), or if an assessment is requested by the parent, and to provide a written copy of the assessment to the parent carer.

What happened

Background

25. The following chronology provides a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It does not include every detail of what happened.
26. Mrs X has two disabled children to whom the complaint relates to. In August 2022, the Council completed an assessment and recommended that the family be supported as ‘children in need’. The Council agreed to provide weekly overnight respite for the family.
27. The overnight respite was supposed to take place outside the family home. Whilst it sought a suitable provider, the Council said it would offer overnight support in the home using an agency or provide Mrs X with direct payments. Mrs X declined this as she said having to be in the house whilst carers looked after the children was not a break for them.

Mrs X’s complaint

28. Mrs X made a stage one complaint in August 2024 under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Her complaint was as follows:
• The Council failed to provide emergency respite the previous month after she had called the Council in crisis.
29. Following this, Mrs X made a proposal for overnight respite to take place which met the whole family’s needs. The proposal covered the costs of overnight respite in the family home as well as hotels and meal allowance for the rest of the family when the respite was taking place.

The Council’s stage one investigation

30. The Council issued a stage one complaint response in October 2024 which said the following:
• The Council accepted due to issues with the availability of a suitable provider, it had not provided respite care to the family.
• Staff from the short-breaks team had now contacted Mrs X to undertake an impact assessment. It said following a short-matching process, it should be able to provide short-breaks for the children. The Council said this process should take no longer than a further six weeks.
• It said it appreciated the time Mrs X took to make the proposal and said it had agreed to payments. This included £100 insurance cover and £484 for the overnight respite.
• The Council apologised for the faults identified and offered her £400.

Stage two investigation

31. After Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two the same month, the investigating officer (IO) issued their report in January. The IO investigated two points of complaint. These included:
1. The Council failed to provide suitable respite care for the family despite it being identified in a needs assessment in 2022 and a crisis call being made by the family in July 2024.
2. The Council failed to communicate the proposed respite clearly in the stage one response, leaving the family confused and unsure of the short-term and long-term plan.
32. Complaint one was partially upheld. The IO found that the children were still not accessing overnight respite outside of the family home despite the Council agreeing to this two and a half years ago. However, the IO said the Council did try and put in place reasonable and appropriate respite in the home. The family could have accessed this for the past 2.5 years should they have accepted it.
33. Complaint two was fully upheld. The IO found that after Ms X sent her proposal to the Council, senior officer 1 agreed to the proposal without considering how it could be delivered. They subsequently left and senior officer 2 rejected the proposal as it did not comply with the Council’s direct payment policy. However, the stage one response failed to make clear senior officer 2 rejected the decision or provide rationale for the decision.
34. Mrs X’s desired outcomes from the investigation were as follows:
1. For the Council to put in place a suitable, long-term plan for respite for the family as soon as possible.
2. If respite in the home continues, then the Council should put in place a suitable personal budget to cover expenses incurred such as hotel stays.
3. A suitable contingency plan in place in the event of the family feeling like they are at crisis point again.
4. A clear explanation of the stage one response.
35. Regarding outcome one, the IO said a long-term plan for respite care outside the home is now in place. Regarding outcome two, the IO said it was not a proportionate use of public funds to pay for expenses.
36. Regarding outcome three, the IO said the current respite carers in the home were a suitable contingency plan. The IO agreed with outcome four.
37. The IP wrote their report which supported the IO’s findings and recommendations. The IP was satisfied the IO had conducted a fair, thorough and proportionate investigation of the complaints raised and sufficient evidence was gathered to make the findings.
38. The Council wrote to Mrs X with its stage two adjudication letter towards the end of February 2025. It accepted the recommendations and agreed with the upheld elements of the complaint.

Stage three investigation

39. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and asked it to consider her complaint at stage three in March 2025. The Council issued its stage three report in May 2025.
40. The Council arranged a stage three panel meeting at the beginning of May 2025 to consider Mrs X’s complaint. Mrs X informed the panel that the children had their first overnight stay outside the home in April 2025. However, the provider only has availability for them on a Wednesday. Therefore, until a weekend slot becomes available, they will continue with overnight respite in the home on a Friday night. Mrs X explained she works full time so having a night away mid-week was not ideal.
41. Mrs X told the panel her desired outcomes were as follows:
1. Clarification on whether the Council would stand by the agreement of senior officer 1 for a personal budget to cover the cost of accommodation and meals whilst overnight respite was provided in the home.
2. A suitable contingency plan as outlined in paragraph 34. Mrs X said now they had started weekly respite in the family home again, this could no longer be used as the contingency plan. Mrs X questioned what would happen if one of the carers was sick.
3. After the stage two investigation, the Council sent a further letter clarifying its stage one response. Mrs X said the information provided was the same so she requested again a clear explanation of why her proposal for overnight respite was not accepted.
4. An apology for insensitive and inappropriate comments made in the stage two report.
42. The panel decided to fully uphold complaint one rather than partially uphold it. The panel found the Council failed to provide suitable respite care which met the needs of the whole family. It said there was also no emergency provision made in response to Mrs X’s crisis call in July 2024. Complaint two remained as fully upheld.
43. The recommendations from the stage three panel were as follows:
1. The Council should review the case and identify what led to the delays in provision at the different stages.
2. When there is a need for overnight respite outside the home, the Council should explore a full range of available provision from the outset and not focus on one provider.
3. The Council should consider exploring external providers in tandem with in-house provision to reduce delays.
4. The Council should develop a robust and appropriate contingency plan for if the family finds itself in crisis again in the future.
5. The Council should carry out a revised assessment and if the outcome is for overnight respite in the home then the Council should adhere to the previous agreement of covering the costs of hotels and meals for the family.
6. The Council should consider the potential inaccurate information and poor choice of language as identified by Mrs X in the stage two report. A senior officer should offer to meet with Mrs X to discuss this in greater detail and addendums should be added to reports or case records if agreed by both parties.
7. The Council should consider reinforcing to professionals the importance of using appropriate and non-inflammatory language and tone in case records.
8. The Council should provide further clarification on the discrepancy in the wording between the complaint officers stage one response in October and their letter of clarification in March.
44. The adjudicating officer (AO) wrote to Mrs X with its stage three adjudication letter in June 2025. They said the following:
• The Council accepted recommendation one and it would send senior officer 2 the full complaints bundle include the AO’s response so the lessons can be considered in the future development of services.
• The Council accepted recommendation two and three. It said senior officer 2 was responsible for the commissioning of placements and building up a range of available placements and short break provision.
• In response to recommendation four, the Council said the current carers that provide overnight respite in the family home understand the children’s needs and have a relationship with them. However, the Council said this would require further exploration. Also, in the children’s plans provided it said this would need to be authorised by a manager and the Council would need to update the assessments.
• In response to recommendation five, the Council said both children were currently being reassessed and a carers assessment would be offered to both parents. However, it said it would not be able agree additional payments for accommodations or meals. It said it had limited resources, no other parents receive the additional payments and it is not lawful to pay for this out of the direct payments budget.
• In response to recommendation six, the Council said it would arrange a meeting with senior officer 3 for Mrs X to discuss the care records.
• In response to recommendation seven, the Council said it would promote this within all improvement activity with the senior leadership team and all other staff.
• In response to recommendation eight, it said the complaints officer who wrote the stage one response and additional response no longer worked for the Council. Therefore, it could not give a definitive answer for the discrepancy. However, the Council suggested why it may have occurred. It also apologised for the lack of clarity about Mrs X’s respite proposal and it had now made a final decision on the matter.
45. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us.

Council’s response to our enquiries

46. In response to recommendation one, the Council has provided some evidence in the form of internal emails which confirm the adjudicating officer sent senior officer 2 the full complaints bundle and provided feedback from a complaints perspective.
47. In response to recommendation two and three, the Council has provided some evidence in the form of internal emails which confirm senior officer 2 is leading a full review of commissioning arrangements including recruitment to strengthen the service and this piece of working is ongoing. It has not provided any evidence of the actual work undertaken or when this will be completed by.
48. In response to recommendation four, the Council has said the contingency plan is to use the current overnight respite carers if the family finds itself in crisis again.
49. In response to recommendation five and six, the Council said due to staffing delays it has been unable to action these recommendations yet.
50. In response to recommendation seven, the Council said it appointed a permanent Head of Service for Practice and Quality Assurance. It said it had also reviewed its recording policy which was due to go live in January 2026.

My findings

51. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, our role is to consider the following:
• was the investigation properly conducted and are the conclusions evidence based. If not, would the Ombudsman reach a different view based on the information available to us?;
• did the Council offer a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by fault? If not, would the Ombudsman recommend any further remedial action?; and
• has the Council fully implemented any agreed remedy? If not, has the delay caused any further injustice to the complainant?
52. The Council carried out a properly conducted investigation and offered an appropriate remedy. However, it has failed to implement the recommendations made which I have outlined below.

Recommendation one

53. Whilst there is evidence the adjudicating officer sent senior officer 2 the full complaints bundle, there is no evidence the Council has reviewed and identified in this case what caused the delays in provision at different stages. As the Council has not provided the evidence, on a balance of probabilities, it has not carried out recommendation one which was fault.

Recommendation two and three

54. The Council has provided some evidence that it is undertaking a full review of the commissioning arrangements, and this is on-going. However, the Council has taken too long to carry out this recommendation. We expect the Council to carry out recommendations without excessive drift and delay. The Council confirmed it would undertake a review eight months ago in June 2025 and it is still not complete to date. The Council has let the matter drift causing delay with no meaningful progression which was fault.

Recommendation four

55. The Council has said the contingency plan was to use the current overnight respite carers if the family finds itself in crisis again. However, the Council has provided no records to show this was authorised by a manager or that the assessments were updated to include this. Mrs X has also raised concern about the availability of the respite workers which the Council has not addressed. On a balance of probabilities, the Council did not complete recommendation four to a reasonable standard which was fault.

Recommendation five

56. The Council confirmed it failed to carry out a revised assessment to determine whether overnight respite in the home should continue. It has also failed to undertake a carers assessment. This was fault.
57. I have recommended the Council carry out a revised assessment within one month of the decision. I cannot comment on what the outcome of the assessment will be and the Council does not have to agree with the panel’s recommendation to cover expenses.
58. However, if the outcome is for overnight home respite, then the Council needs to provide a clear rationale for why it will not be covering expenses. It will also need to provide suitable respite care which met the needs of the family as a whole. If Mrs X remains dissatisfied, she will need to make a new complaint with the Council.

Recommendation six

59. The Council confirmed it has not held a meeting with Mrs X to discuss the inaccurate information and poor choice of language in the case records and stage two report. Therefore, the Council was at fault.

Recommendation seven

60. In the adjudicating letter to Mrs X, the Council said it would promote to senior leadership and all staff the importance of appropriate and non-inflammatory language and tone in case records. The Council has provided no evidence it carried this out. Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, the Council did not complete this recommendation which was fault.

Recommendation eight

61. The Council has been unable to provide definitive reasons for the problems with the stage one and subsequent clarification letter because the officer who wrote them has since left the Council. However, the Council has apologised and did provide Mrs X with a suggestion of why the discrepancy may have occurred. Therefore, the Council was not at fault for not carrying out this recommendation.
62. The Council’s failure to carry out the recommendations has caused Mrs X distress, frustration and uncertainty as the family’s needs have gone unmet for longer than necessary.
63. I have made recommendations below for the Council to remedy the injustice caused. I have not remedied the lack of overnight respite between 2022-2024 as we have already investigated this and issued a final decision in July 2024.

Back to top

Action

64. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by its failure to carry out the recommendations made after it investigated Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Pay Mrs X £500 for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by its failure to carry out the agreed recommendations after it investigated Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
3. Carry out recommendations one to seven and provide evidence it has done so.
65. Within three months of the final decision, the Council should:
1. Review this case to identify why it has failed to carry out seven out of the eight recommendations and create an action plan to prevent this from occurring in the future.
66. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman