Summary: We will have upheld Mr X’s complaint about delays in the children’s statutory complaints process. The Council has taken the steps we suggested to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint through the statutory children’s complaints process. In particular, he said:
• it did not escalate to stage 2 when he asked for this;
• there was a delay in appointing an investigating officer and independent person, causing a delay in the issue of the stage 2 reports.
2. Mr X said the delays caused significant stress and he was forced to comply with instructions not to have contact with his children until the outcome was issued.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. 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.
5. The guidance says councils should respond:
• at stage 1 within 20 working days
• at stage 2 within 25 working days, but this can be extended to 65 working days.
6. 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.
7. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

10. Mr X complained to the Council about a child protection matter in March 2025. The Council responded on 16 April, which was within 20 working days. Mr X was unhappy with the response. The Council sent a second stage 1 response on 5 July, which was 56 working days later. In the meantime, the Council had offered to meet with Mr X but he said he preferred communications in writing.
11. I do not know when an investigating officer and independent person were appointed to carry out the stage 2 investigation. However, the stage 2 report was issued on 9 October. This was 68 workings days following the second stage 1 response. A stage 3 panel was held on 12 January 2026 and the Council wrote to Mr X on 6 February, setting out how it would implement the panel’s recommendations.

My assessment

12. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find fault with the Council for delays in the complaints process. The extra stage 1 response, delayed the process by about two months. Although the stage 2 can take up to 65 working days, there is no indication the complaint was so complex, this was justified on this occasion. There was no delay at stage 3. The overall delay is therefore three months.
13. The delay caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration. It did not affect his ability to have contact with his children as that was not happening because the children’s mother had not agreed to it. The outcome of the complaints process did not change the position in relation to contact.
14. We asked the Council to take steps to remedy the injustice caused and it has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• apologise to Mr X for the complaints handling delays in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice; and
• pay him £150 as a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. This is in line with our guidance on remedies, which says we will usually remedy delays in the children’s statutory complaints process at the rate of £50 per month.
15. The Council has taken appropriate steps to prevent recurrence of the delays in this case, so no further recommendations were needed.
16. For completeness, the complaints process was thorough and I have not identified any flaws in it. There is, therefore, no need for us to re-investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman