Summary: Mr X complained the Council has not completed the stage 2 investigation within the time period allowed in the statutory complaint’s procedure. Mr X said this distressed him. There was fault in the way the Council delayed completing the stage two investigation. This distressed Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and complete the statutory complaint procedure.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has not completed the Children’s statutory complaints procedures within the time period allowed. Mr X said this distressed him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’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)
4. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read Mr X’s complaint.
6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

8. 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.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 children’s statutory complaint procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
15. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all, or all significant complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.
16. Councils can refuse to consider a complaint if a complainant says they intend to take legal action or if investigating a complaint could prejudice concurrent court proceedings. However, after the proceedings have ended, a complainant can resubmit the complaint for the council to consider.

What happened

17. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
18. Mr X complained to the Council about matters involving his child in September 2024. Mr X added further issues to his complaint in October 2024.
19. The Council issued its stage 1 response at the end of October 2024. The Council apologised for the slight delay following Mr X adding more information but did not uphold the complaint.
20. In early November 2024, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the statutory complaint’s procedure.
21. The Council commissioned an IO to complete the stage 2 investigation in December 2024.
22. In January 2025, the IO met Mr X to start the investigation.
23. The IO issued the statement of complaint they were investigating in February 2025. The Council paused the investigation due to a court case relating to this matter. The Council continued the investigation at the start of March 2025.
24. Mr X asked the IO to amend the summary of complaint in March 2025. The IO agreed to amend the summary of complaint and started the investigation the following day. Mr X submitted a complaint the following day. The Council at first tried to add this to the stage two complaint.
25. Mr X added further parts to the complaint in May 2025. The IO asked for additional time because of the added information.
26. The IO issued a revised statement of compliant in July 2025. Mr X did not agree to the revised statement, but the IO decided to progress the investigation as they understood the complaint.
27. The IO completed the stage 2 investigation in early August 2025. The Council sent the stage 2 adjudication letter to Mr X in mid-September 2025. The IP report agreed with the IO report. The Council agreed with the IO report. It offered Mr X £200 to recognise the inconvenience the delay caused.
28. Mr X was not happy with the Council response and escalated his complaint to stage 3 of the statutory complaint’s procedure.
29. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X would like the Council to acknowledge the procedural failings, apologise and offer a suitable financial remedy.
30. In response to my enquiries the Council accepted delays in its investigation but confirmed Mr X added matters to the complaint in the investigation, further delaying the investigation.

My findings

31. The statutory children’s complaint procedure is a statutory procedure the Council must follow. As set out in paragraph 14, where a council has investigated a complaint under the children’s statutory complaint procedure, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed.
32. The Council completed the stage one investigation and issued its response after 27 days after the initial complaint. This is more than the 20 days allowed in the statutory process. However, after Mr X added to the complaint, the Council issued its response within this timescale. The Council was not at fault.
33. The IO conducted a thorough and detailed investigation into the matters in the statement of complaint. This statement of complaint changed during the investigation, causing delay. The IP oversaw the investigation. The IO spoke to Mr X and the Council officers involved in this matter. The IO also considered relevant documentation about Mr X’s complaint.
34. There was no fault in how the Council completed the statutory complaint procedure other than delays in the process. I recognise this has been distressing for Mr X, but the decisions were taken without fault. I do not find fault with the Council for how it carried out the statutory complaints procedure and I do not propose to reinvestigate the complaint.
35. While the investigation considered the points raised, there were delays in the stage two investigation. Mr X added information and raised a separate complaint in the process. The Council at first added this information to the stage two investigation. It then opened a separate complaint. This delayed investigating this complaint. This is fault, distressing Mr X.
36. The Council also delayed completing the second investigation. This is fault, frustrating Mr X.
37. The Council has accepted delays in the complaint process. The delays are fault, distressing Mr X. The Council offered Mr X £200 to acknowledge the delays distressed Mr X.
38. The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies says, “We should use £50 per month as a guide of how much to recommend as a symbolic recognition of the impact of the delay.”
39. Given the added information, complaints and challenges to the process, I consider the Council offer of £200 to be reasonable in this case.
40. Since approaching the Ombudsman, the Council stopped its consideration of Mr X’s complaints due to the threat of legal action. I do not comment on any matter about this as it happened after approaching the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction when there are ongoing court matters. Mr X has since confirmed he will not be taking legal action and the Council agreed to complete stage three of the statutory complaint procedure on the first complaint and complete stage two of the second.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X by the fault I have identified, the Council agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X for the distress caused by the delays in the statutory complaint procedure. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mr X the £200 it offered as an acknowledgement of the time and trouble he has spent pursuing this complaint.
• Complete the complaint processes as it agreed.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

43. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman