Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not fully address all parts of her complaint or provide sufficient remedy when it considered her complaint through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council did properly follow the procedure and considered her complaints, but its remedy did not fully reflect the distress and frustration caused to her. There was also delay in the Council’s complaint handling. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X a symbolic financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
• Excluded her from a Child in Need meeting regarding her child, Z.
• Delayed considering contact between her and Z.
• Did not consider her position as a care leaver in its contact with her.
• Did not provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to her after her complaint had been considered through the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
2. Mrs X said the actions of the Council had caused her significant distress and impacted her mental well-being.

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. 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)
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)
6. 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

7. I read the documents provided by Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her on the phone.
8. I considered the documents provided by 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 legislation and guidance

Child Protection (Section 47)

10. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
11. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.

Child in Need (Section 17)

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.
14. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days.
15. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family.
16. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 

The statutory children’s complaints procedure

17. 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.
18. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.

Reinvestigation

22. 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.
23. 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 completed any recommendations without delay.

What happened

24. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
25. In February 2024 the Council carried out enquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 after a referral was made for Mrs X’s child, Z. Z went to stay with a relative in another council area.
26. A social worker visited Mrs X in March 2024 to advise her the enquiries were complete and there would now be a Child in Need plan prepared for Z. The social worker advised Mrs X she should not have contact with Z.
27. The Council began the process of transferring the Child in Need planning to the new Council (Council B) where Z was living.
28. The Council held a Child in Need meeting in April 2024. Mrs X was not invited to the meeting, and her views were not sought. After the meeting, Council B became responsible for Z’s care and support and the Child in Need planning.
29. In April 2024 Mrs X complained to the Council about the lack of contact and her lack of involvement in the Child in Need planning. The Council responded later in April 2024, upholding some of her complaint at stage one of the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
30. Mrs X made a further complaint to the Council in May 2024, as she did not feel the stage one response sufficiently addressed her complaint.
31. The Council investigated under stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. It appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) and an Independent Person (IP). The IO met with Mrs X and discussed the complaint. The IO sent the record of complaint to Mrs X and the IP and asked Mrs X to confirm it was accurate. Mrs X agreed the record of complaint. There were eight points of complaint.
32. The IO considered all the available documentary evidence from the Council, and from Council B. They interviewed key Council staff members, Mrs X and one of Mrs X’s children. It completed the investigation and upheld two elements of complaint and partially upheld three elements. It did not uphold two elements and made no finding on one element. The IP agreed with the findings.
33. The stage two investigation found:
• The Council should have explained to Mrs X sooner why she was told not to have contact with Z in March 2024.
• There had been disproportionate delay in Mrs X being able to contact Z.
• The transition to Council B should have been more robust.
• Mrs X should not have been excluded from the Child in Need process in April 2024.
34. The IO’s report recommended the Council should:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused by the upheld complaints.
• Work with Council B to decide which Council had responsibility for each part of this complaint.
• Reassure itself that its policy and process for transfer of cases between areas was sufficiently robust.
• Re-send the Child in Need meeting minutes to Mrs X.
• Reassure itself that, in any situation, all children impacted by their interventions were considered.
35. The stage two investigation acknowledged the significant anxiety Mrs X faced but said the actions of the Council were proportionate and appropriate.
36. The Council considered the IO’s report and wrote an adjudication letter to Mrs X in November 2024. It agreed with the IO’s findings. As a result of the faults identified at stage two the Council said it would:
• Learn from Mrs X’s complaint, ensure staff had reflective supervision and take action to improve its practice.
• Take action to improve the transfer of cases between Council areas.
• Write to Mrs X to apologise for her exclusion from the Child in Need meeting and the delay in her receiving documents.
37. Mrs X requested a review of the stage two complaint investigation the following month. The Council conducted this under the third and final stage of the statutory procedure in March 2025.
38. The stage three panel considered the stage two investigation. It recommended the Council ensured handover meetings between councils included parents and that it conducted further analysis of complaints where there were similar themes.
39. The Council accepted the findings of the panel and provided its final response to Mrs X in April 2025. The Council wrote to Mrs X to apologise for its fault and said it recognised Mrs X experienced considerable distress. It also said it had taken the actions identified in the outcome of the stage two investigation.

My findings

40. The stage two investigation was thorough, robust and well-evidenced. The Investigating Officer considered the evidence we would expect and interviewed relevant staff. The Independent Person agreed with their findings. The investigation found the Council at fault in how it managed some of Mrs X’s case.
41. The independent stage three panel then considered the findings at stage two and made further recommendations.
42. There was no evidence of fault in how the Council carried out the complaint investigation, so I have no reason to question its findings. However, the was a delay in the Council completing the statutory complaints procedure. There was a delay of over two months at stage two and a delay of almost one month in the Council responding at stage three, this is fault.
43. The Council has already made service improvements to address its faults. These are appropriate and I do not think further service improvement recommendations are necessary. It has also apologised to Mrs X.
44. I consider that a further personal remedy would be appropriate in this case. Our guidance says we will recommend redress which is proportionate, appropriate and reasonable based on the facts of the case. We will take account of any offer made and will not interfere if we consider a proposal satisfactorily addresses the injustice caused.
45. In this case, the Council accepted it excluded Mrs X from the Child in Need planning regarding Z, delayed promoting contact between her and Z and delayed sharing key information with her, all of which caused her distress. It also delayed carrying out its statutory investigation at stages two and three which caused Mrs X frustration. In these circumstances the Council should pay Mrs X a symbolic financial remedy, in line with our published guidance, to recognise the injustice caused.

Back to top

Action

46. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following actions:
1. pay Mrs X £300 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s faults above and
2. pay Mrs X £150 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by its delay in investigating her complaint using the statutory complaints procedure.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice and the Council has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman