Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to effectively communicate important information outlined in the Child in Need Plans with Mr X and Mrs Y. The Council’s delayed complaint response was also fault. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X and Mrs Y to acknowledge the avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused by its faults. It will also take action to prevent the recurrence of the same faults.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of himself and his partner, Mrs Y. He complained the Council:
1. failed to inform them of the requirements of a Child in Need Plan for his living arrangement after a court hearing ended in February 2025. Mr X said they were not made aware that a specialist risk assessment was needed before he was able to return to the family home after the court hearing;
2. did not send them copies of all Child in Need Plans or minutes of the Child in Need meetings;
3. did not communicate properly with them. He said the Council social worker made frequent contact with Mrs Y, often at unsuitable hours; and,
4. took too long to respond to his complaint.
2. Mr X said as a result he had to leave his home at short notice and this impacted his mental health and that of his family.

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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I spoke to Mr X about the complaint.
9. I considered evidence provided by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X, Mrs Y 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 law and guidance

11. 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 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. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. 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 Council’s Children’s Social Care procedures manual on Child in Need of Support:

12. The Council publishes its procedures manual online. The manual states that records of the Child in Need review meetings will be sent to the child (if old enough), parent and all other participants in the review process, who will need to sign their agreement. It also states that any updated Child in Need Plan should be circulated to the child, parents, and other agencies/professionals involved in providing the services set out in the amended Plan, including any new services to be provided.

The Council’s corporate complaints policy

13. The Council uses a two-stage complaints process:

• Stage one – it will acknowledge complaints within five working days and issue a full response within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
• Stage two – it will acknowledge an escalation request within five working days and issue a full response within 20 working days of acknowledgement.

What happened

14. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
15. Mr X received a criminal conviction in February 2025. Following the incident in 2023 that led to this conviction, Mr X lived away from the family home. During this period Mr X visited the family home during the day and had supervised (by Mrs Y) contact with his child. This arrangement was assessed by the Council’s children’s services to be safe at the time. Mr X told us the Council’s children’s services closed their case in February 2024. He told us he contacted the Council in November 2024 because he wanted to return to the family home.
16. The Council produced the first Child in Need Plan in early February 2025 before Mr X was convicted which stated that a specialist risk assessment needed to be completed on Mr X to thoroughly understand the risks to his child.
17. Mr X said he returned home following his conviction. He said the Council social workers contacted Mrs Y a couple of days later to say he should not have returned home before the completion of a specialist risk assessment as stated in the Child in Need Plan of February 2025.
18. In April 2025 Mr X registered a complaint with the Council. He complained that:

• he had not received a response to the complaint he made in person with the social work manager regarding a social worker. Mr X had complained that their allocated social worker was aggressive in their communication with Mrs Y and they contacted Mrs Y multiple times during the day and late at night. He said that despite the social work manager stating that the social worker would no longer have any involvement in their case, the Council kept connecting them to the same social worker every time they called about their case.
• the Council had not sent them any copies of the Child in Need Plan or minutes of the Child in Need meeting and he was not aware of the requirement of a risk assessment before he could return to the family home.
• the Council had not communicated any further updates or timescales regarding the specialist risk assessment.

19. In mid-July 2025 the Council issued a stage one complaint response. The Council:

• apologised that Mr X had not received copies of the Child in Need Plans. It had made changes to its service to ensure minutes of the Child in Need meetings were provided to families and professionals in a timely manner. (We asked the Council to provide us with evidence of the specific actions it took and the result of those actions on its service as part of our enquiries. We have not received this evidence.)
• apologised that Mr X had not received a written response to the concerns he raised in person with the manager. The manager had agreed that this social worker would not carry out any further home visits and another social worker completed later visits.
• apologised for not formally changing the allocated social worker during transition between teams which impacted Mr X and Mrs Y’s ability to telephone their new allocated social worker.
• explained that while the criminal court did not impose any formal restrictions on Mr X regarding contact with his child, the Council remained concerned of risks to the child. The Council said it had verbally shared with the parents that Mr X needed a specialist risk assessment before his return to the family home during the Child in Need meeting and had also recorded this in the Child in Need Plan. The Council apologised that it had not sent Mr X a copy of the Child in Need Plan. It noted that Mr X had since returned to the family home following the Council’s completion of the specialist risk assessment.

20. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mr X escalated his complaint. He also said had not received minutes of the recent May and June 2025 Child in Need meetings. He felt the change the Council said it had made to its service following his complaint had either not come in effect or was being ignored by social workers.
21. In late August 2025 the Council issued a stage two complaint response. In it the Council:

• apologised again for not sending Mr X and Mrs Y copies of the Child in Need Plan and explained that while it had introduced new measures to ensure Child in Need minutes were shared in a timely manner, there may be times when the minutes are delayed due to pressure on the service. It said it was taking steps to reduce the delays where possible.
• stated that it had a duty to safeguard children and the actions it took by asking Mr X to temporarily leave the family home for a specialist risk assessment was for his child’s safety and wellbeing.
• said it would ask the social work manager to provide a written response regarding the outcome of the home visit where concerns were discussed. (Mr X told us he had not received this response.)

22. Unhappy with the outcome Mr X complained to us.
23. We asked the Council to send us copies of the minutes of any Child in Need meetings from November 2024 to July 2025 and evidence these were sent to Mr X and Mrs Y. It has not provided this evidence. The Council told us Mr X and Mrs Y were advised of the need of a specialist risk assessment verbally in the Child in Need meeting in mid-February 2025.

Analysis

The Council’s communication

24. In its complaint response, the Council said that while it verbally shared the need for Mr X to have a specialist risk assessment in the Child in Need meeting, with Mr X and Mrs Y, it accepted that this information may not have been made clear as it did not send them a copy of the Plan.
25. The Council’s published Child in Need procedure manual states that it should send records of the Child in Need meeting and the Child in Need Plans to all relevant parties including the parents. There was no evidence to show it did this to ensure Mr X and Mrs Y were aware and understood this important requirement related to their living arrangement following Mr X’s conviction.
26. In the absence of written evidence, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Council failed to ensure Mr X was sufficiently aware he could not return to the family home following his conviction before the completion of a specialist risk assessment. The Council’s failure to effectively communicate this significant information was not in line with its published procedure and was fault which caused Mr X and Mrs Y avoidable frustration. While the Council said that there may be some delays in sending out documents due to the demand on its service, it was important for the Council to send minutes of the Child in Need meetings and the Plans quickly to ensure all relevant parties, including the parents were working to the important agreed actions.
27. I have gone on to consider if the fault I found caused the injustice Mr X alleged, including the impact on his mental health and his family, after having to leave his home at short notice. If it had not been for the Council’s fault of failing to share the Child in Need Plan in a timely way, on balance Mr X would still have been required to live away from the home following his conviction pending the Council’s risk assessment. In addition, the conviction itself would likely have caused Mr X and his family upset. Therefore, I cannot say the Council’s failure to share the document added significantly to that upset. Nevertheless, I find it caused avoidable frustration.
28. The Council also agreed to communicate a written response from the social work manager to one of Mr X’s complaints raised with them, in its stage two complaint response. The Council has not done so which added to Mr X’s frustration.

The Council’s complaint handling

29. The Council took too long to respond to Mr X’s complaint at stage one of its complaints process. It should have responded to Mr X’s complaint within 10 working days of acknowledging it and by late April 2025, in line with its policy. The Council did not issue a stage one complaint response until mid-July 2025 which was fault that caused Mr X avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Action

30. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to both Mr X and Mrs Y for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by the faults identified in this decision. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Mr X £200 for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused to him and Mrs Y by its failure to effectively communicate the requirements of the Child in Need Plan and for the avoidable frustration caused by its delayed response to his complaint.
3. Provide Mr X with a written response from its social worker manager as promised in its stage two complaint response of August 2025. If it is unable to provide this response, it will write to Mr X to explain why.
31. Within two months of this decision the Council will provide documentary evidence of the specific action(s) it took following Mr X’s complaint and the result of it implementing those actions to ensure it sends minutes of the Child in Need meetings and copies Child in Need Plans to families without delay. It will also tell us how long it took to send 10 Child in Need meeting minutes and Plans for other families in the last three months of this decision statement.
32. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed actions to remedy that injustice and to prevent injustice to others in the future.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman