Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to properly assess her child’s needs and provide short breaks and failed to carry out the agreed stage two recommendations. The Council was at fault. There were delays by the Council in its handling of Ms B’s complaint and in it actioning the agreed recommendations. Ms B suffered distress, frustration and spent time and trouble pursuing the matter. Ms B’s child also lost the opportunity to receive support and short breaks. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments and send us evidence of a review it says it is carrying out.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains the Council has failed to properly assess her child’s needs and provide short breaks. She also complains the Council has failed to carry out the recommendations made at stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure.
2. Ms B says the Council’s actions have caused distress and frustration, and her child has been unable to access short breaks.
3. She would like the Council to:
• Acknowledge its failings and the distress it has caused to her and her family.
• Offer a financial remedy.
• Complete a short breaks assessment.

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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to carry out the recommendations made at stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure and whether it has now implemented the recommendations.
8. I have not investigated the substantive issues Ms B complained to the Council about. This is because the substantive matters have already been appropriately considered through the statutory children’s complaint procedure. As such, we will not reinvestigate these matters, as outlined in paragraph 19.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I read Ms B’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
10. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Ms B 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

Statutory children’s complaint procedure

12. 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.
13. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.

Early referrals to the LGSCO

18. 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.

No reinvestigation if process complete and not flawed

19. 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.
20. 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

What happened

21. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
22. Ms B complained to the Council about its failure to assess her child’s needs. She says this has caused her child to be unable to access support and short breaks. At stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure, the Council upheld all of Ms B’s significant complaints and agreed to carry out the recommendations made by the IO and IP. As such, when Ms B raised a stage three complaint with the Council, it made an early referral to us, as it did not feel consideration at stage three was likely to result in a different outcome.
23. At stage two, the Council agreed to the recommendations made to it by the IO and IP. The recommendations included personal remedies which were to be made to Ms B. This included the Council to:
• Apologise to Ms B for the upheld complaints.
• Explain to Ms B how the short breaks services work.
• Respond to Ms B’s outstanding and future communications.
• Arrange an assessment for Ms B’s child, and for the outcome of the assessment to be expedited to ensure they have access to the services they are entitled to as soon as possible, without further delay.
24. The Council’s stage two adjudication response confirming it accepted the recommendations, was sent to Ms B in June 2025.
25. The Council started the short breaks assessment in March 2026, and it was completed in April 2026. The Council wrote to Ms B around the same time. It acknowledged it had not progressed a short breaks assessment in a timely manner and apologised for this. Shortly after, a support and respite package for Ms B’s child was agreed, to enable them to access the support they require. Ms B is happy with the agreed support.
26. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me it has also offered financial remedies to Ms B. It has offered:
• £500 to recognise the lost opportunity for Ms B’s child to access the support they should have had access to sooner, but for the Council’s delay in it carrying out a short breaks assessment.
• £250 to recognise the frustration caused to Ms B by the Council’s delays in the handling of her complaint and carrying out the agreed recommendations.
• £200 to recognise the time and trouble Ms B has spent pursuing the matter.

Back to top

Analysis

27. I note the IP pointed out that some staff failed to participate in the stage two investigation. As such, the IO was unable to make a finding about one of Ms B’s complaint points regarding a phone call Ms B had with a staff member. It is poor practice for relevant staff to not engage with interviews as part of the statutory complaint procedure. However, this does not call the IO’s stage two findings into question in this case. I have not identified any other flaws, and the IP also did not have other concerns regarding the IO’s investigation. Further, the Council upheld all the other complaints, and the complaint point in question was not a significant one, in that a finding of this complaint point was not likely to have resulted in a different outcome to the investigation. The Council also says these staff members no longer work at the Council.
28. Given the above, I have not investigated the substantive matters of Ms B’s complaint. My consideration of the complaint has therefore focussed on:
• whether the Council has carried out the complaint procedure without delay;
• if the agreed recommendations remedy Ms B’s injustice; and
• if the Council has carried out those recommendations without delay.
29. The Council has acknowledged there has been delays in this case. It sent Ms B its stage one complaint response around seven weeks later than it should have. It also sent its stage two response to Ms B eight weeks later than it should have. This was fault, which caused avoidable distress and frustration to Ms B.
30. The Council agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations. The Council wrote to Ms B to apologise for its identified failings, shared the short breaks assessment with Ms B with a summary of how short breaks work, and says it has since responded to outstanding communications from her and completed a short breaks assessment. However, the Council did not action these recommendations in a timely manner. The Council did not issue written apologies to Ms B until April 2026. It also did not complete the short breaks assessment until this time, around nine months after it agreed to the recommendations at stage two. The Council’s delay in actioning these recommendations was fault.
31. This fault caused distress and frustration to Ms B, and meant she continued to chase the Council for updates. As the Council has acknowledged, it also caused an injustice to Ms B’s child, as it meant they lost the opportunity to receive support and short breaks they would have had the opportunity to access sooner, had the Council completed the assessment in a timely manner.
32. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
33. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.
34. The Council has offered Ms B £250 in recognition of the injustice caused to her by its complaint-handling delays and delays in it carrying out the agreed recommendations. Where there has been injustice caused by complaint-handling delays, our usual approach is to recommend a financial remedy of £50 per month of delay. In this case, the complaint-handling delays total 15 weeks, which equates to around three and a half months. So, £175 would be appropriate to acknowledge the complaint-handling delays alone.
35. However, the remaining £75 of the Council’s £250 payment is not adequate to acknowledge the injustice caused to Ms B by the delays in it carrying out the agreed recommendations. During the period Ms B’s child lost the opportunity to receive the support and short breaks due to the Council’s delay in carrying out an assessment, Ms B was also impacted, and she also did not receive respite. Therefore, the £250 the Council has offered to Ms B for the complaint-handling delays and the delay in actioning the personal remedies is not suitable to remedy the injustice caused to Ms B. I have made a recommendation to reflect this. However, the £200 the Council has offered to Ms B in recognition of the time and trouble she has spent in pursuing and chasing matters is appropriate and in line with our guidance on remedies.
36. Our guidance on remedies says that for distress, including lost opportunity, where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment of up to £500. This will reflect circumstances including the severity of the distress and the vulnerability of the person affected. The Council has offered £500 in recognition of Ms B’s child’s lost opportunity to access the support and short breaks sooner had there been no delay. In the circumstances of this case, the payment the Council has offered at the top end of the scale is appropriate to acknowledge this injustice.
37. In response to the remaining remedy recommendations, the Council says work is ongoing regarding these which includes an ongoing review of its local offer and short breaks services including the eligibility criteria, associated website content, and short breaks policies. As such, I have not made service improvement recommendations, but I welcome evidence from the Council of the progress it has made so far in completing this review. I have made a recommendation to reflect this.

Back to top

Action

38. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Ms B by the fault I have identified, within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions:
• If it has not already done so, pay Ms B the £500 it has offered to recognise the lost opportunity for her child to access the support they should have had access to sooner, but for the Council’s delay in it carrying out a short breaks assessment.
• If it has not already done so, pay Ms B the £200 it has offered to recognise the time and trouble she has spent pursuing the matter.
• If it has not already done so, pay Ms B the £250 it has offered to recognise the frustration caused to her by the Council’s delays in the handling of her complaint and carrying out the agreed recommendations. £175 of this is for the injustice caused by the complaint-handling delays, and the remaining £75 is for the injustice caused by the delays in carrying out the agreed recommendations.
• Pay Ms B an additional £425 to acknowledge the distress caused to her during the period her child lost the opportunity to receive the support and short breaks due to the Council’s delay in carrying out an assessment. I have recommended £425, as a payment of £500 to acknowledge this injustice would be appropriate, and £75 of this is already lumped together with the £250 the Council has offered to address the injustice caused by this fault, as outlined in the point above.
39. Within three months of our final decision, the Council will also send us evidence of the progress it has made on the review it says it is carrying out to comply with the following stage two recommendations:
• A review of the Council’s local offer and short breaks services, including a review of all published policies, together with the information published across all parts of the council website and local offer site.
• The Council to ensure all obsolete short breaks policies are removed from circulation and staff are made aware of the policies that are in place and which should be followed.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. I uphold Ms B’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman