Summary: Ms B complained that the Council delayed in completing a stage two investigation of her complaint about children’s services. We found the Council delayed by about five months which has caused Ms B frustration. The Council has offered to make a symbolic payment of £150 which we consider is a reasonable remedy. It has also agreed to complete the investigation and apologise to her.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that Westminster City Council (the Council) had not completed a stage two investigation of her complaint about children’s service within 65 days as agreed in November 2025. While the initial delay was due to the cyber-attack it has further delayed since it started the investigation in February 2026. This has caused Ms B distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
3. 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
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

What I found

The three-stage statutory children’s complaints process

7. 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.
8. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
9. 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.
10. 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.

What happened

11. Following a previous complaint to us from Ms B, the Council agreed, on 11 November 2025 to consider a complaint from her about respite care for her child, at stage two of the statutory process with 65 days. It should have been completed by 17 February 2026.
12. On 19 November the Council informed Ms B that there was a delay in allocating investigators to her case due to capacity issues. From 24 November until early March 2026 progress was delayed due to a cyber-attack which meant staff could not access any records from the relevant case files.
13. On 19 February the Council appointed the investigating team, who met Ms B on 3 March with her advocate to agree the statement of complaint. The statement was not finalised until 17 April due to a delay by Ms B in agreeing the statement after raising queries about transcripts from the meeting.
14. The investigating team interviewed staff members at the end of April 2026. On 13 May the Council informed Ms B that it was aiming to complete the report by 9 July 2026, the 65-day deadline.
15. Staff absence caused a further delay and the final staff interview was done on 19 June. The Council said on 25 June it was drafting the report and working towards the deadline of 9 July but a short extension of one or two weeks may be needed.
16. The Council said no other cases were affected by delays and it has offered to pay Ms B £150 for the delay.

Findings

17. The initial three-month delay in starting the complaint investigation was due to the cyber-attack, an event outside of the Council’s control. This was still fault as it was a service failure which caused frustration to Ms B.
18. The process restarted on 19 February 2026, and the initial meeting was arranged promptly. Ms B delayed the process by several weeks due to taking some time to agree the statement of complaint.
19. I understand why the Council calculate the 65-day deadline from the date Ms B agreed the statement of complaint. However, my understanding is that the 65 days runs from the date the investigation started, 19 February and should have been completed by 21 May 2026. It is likely this will be exceeded by a further two months, making a total delay of five months which has caused Ms B some frustration.
20. I welcome the Council’s offer of £150, and I consider this is an appropriate remedy for the delay.

Back to top

Action

21. In recognition of the injustice caused to Ms B I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• completes the stage two investigation, apologises to Ms B and pays her £150.
22. The Council has agreed to the recommendation and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman