Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to communicate properly about his child. We find the Council at fault for poor communication, inaccurate and late meeting minutes, inadequate record-keeping, and a failure to learn from an earlier upheld complaint and implement an agreed communication plan. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty and led to significant time and trouble in repeatedly chasing the Council and making a further complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and review and properly implement a revised communication plan to ensure consistent and timely information sharing.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s poor communication in relation to matters concerning his child. Specifically, he says the Council has failed to respond to his contacts, keep him updated about his child’s situation, share relevant documents, and correct errors in records when he has raised them.
2. Mr X says that, as a result, he has not been properly informed about decisions affecting his child. He says this has caused him significant stress and worry about his child’s wellbeing.

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. 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.
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 considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr 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

Statutory complaints procedures

9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. 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.
12. 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.
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.

What happened

14. Mr X’s child receives support from the Council’s children’s social care team.
15. In 2024, Mr X complained the Council was not keeping him informed about plans and progress relating to his child.
16. The Council investigated the complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure and upheld it. It found that, for around a year, it had failed to send Mr X copies of meeting minutes or keep him properly updated. The Council said it would invite him to all meetings, share significant updates, provide copies of reports and minutes, and arrange a communication plan.
17. In April 2025, the Council agreed a communication plan with Mr X. This said:
• Core group meetings would take place at least every six weeks, with minutes sent within five working days and details of the next meeting included.
• Mr X would receive at least five working days’ notice of review child protection conferences, with minutes issued within 20 working days.
• The social worker would email updates after visits to Mr X’s child and share relevant information at meetings.
• Mr X could raise inaccuracies in writing, and the Council would review and amend records where appropriate.
18. After this, the Council did invite Mr X to meetings. However, it did not provide meeting minutes within the timescales set out in the communication plan.
19. In June, Mr X raised concerns about inaccuracies in a report and said he had not been given certain information before or during meetings. The Council apologised and provided some information, but Mr X had to chase for updates about whether corrections would be made.
20. Delays in sending meeting minutes continued.
21. In July, Mr X again raised concerns that information he had requested had not been provided.
22. In September, Mr X made a further formal complaint. He said meeting minutes were inaccurate, his concerns about them were not acknowledged, amendments were not made, and minutes were often issued several weeks late.
23. At stage one, the Council said it had made some amendments but accepted that minutes had not been provided in line with the communication plan.
24. At stage two, the independent investigating officer found that:
• Mr X had raised valid concerns about inaccuracies which were not consistently addressed;
• Only one correction had been made, with other requests not responded to;
• Communication and follow-up were inconsistent; and
• Minutes were often inaccurate and sent out several weeks late without good reason. The Council accepted these findings.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it could not provide a full record of correspondence with Mr X because some staff had left and records were not properly stored on the case file. This means it cannot show what information was shared, how requests were handled, or whether responses were delayed.
26. The Council accepts it failed to provide meeting minutes in 2024 and failed to do so in a timely way after April 2025. It also accepts the further failings identified during the second complaint investigation. It has offered Mr X £350 to recognise the distress, uncertainty and time spent pursuing his complaint.

My findings

27. The Council has accepted that it:
• Did not provide meeting minutes within agreed timescales;
• Produced inaccurate minutes;
• Failed to properly consider and correct inaccuracies raised by Mr X;
• Communicated inconsistently and did not follow up appropriately.
28. These failings amount to fault.
29. The Council also failed to keep adequate records of its correspondence with Mr X. This is further fault. Because of this, it cannot demonstrate that it responded appropriately to his contacts. Based on the evidence available, I find it more likely than not that the Council did not respond to Mr X consistently or in a timely way. This was fault.
30. The Council had previously investigated and upheld a similar complaint from Mr X about poor communication. It agreed actions to address this, including putting in place a communication plan. However, it failed to ensure those actions were implemented in practice. This represents a failure to learn from the earlier complaint and is a further fault.
31. As a result of these combined failings, Mr X was not properly kept informed about matters concerning his child. This caused him avoidable distress and uncertainty and led to him having to repeatedly chase the Council and make a further complaint.
32. I have considered the Council’s offer of £350. However, given the repeated nature of the failings and the Council’s failure to learn from the earlier complaint, I consider a higher payment is warranted to properly recognise the distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble caused.

Back to top

Action

33. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• Pay Mr X a total of £650. This is instead of its proposed remedy and is made up of:
1. £300 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused; and
2. £350 to recognise the time and trouble involved in pursuing a further complaint.
• Review the April 2025 communication plan, identify why it was not followed, and agree a revised communication plan with Mr X. This should include clear arrangements for sharing information, timescales, and how the Council will ensure compliance.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman