Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with respite support for her and her children. There was no fault in the way the Council completed the statutory procedure, but it failed to make a payment agreed as part of this process. This caused Miss X further frustration. The Council should apologise and provide evidence of payment.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council failed to provide her with the correct respite support for her and her three disabled children.
2. Miss X says this has affected her and her children’s physical and mental health and caused long term medical issues.

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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated the Council’s actions in the statutory complaint procedure.
8. I have not investigated Miss X’s substantive complaints. I have explained why in paragraph 37.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss 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

Legislation and guidance

Section 17 – Child in need (CIN)

11. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
12. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

Statutory complaints procedures - the three-stage process

13. 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.
14. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution.
15. 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.
16. 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.
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 purpose of the stage three panel is to consider the adequacy of the Stage 2 investigation and its findings.
18. The Guidance notes panels are designed to “obtain any further information and advice that may help resolve the complaint to all parties’ satisfaction” and then “to reach findings on each of the complaints being reviewed”.

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.

What happened?

21. Miss X complained to the Council in October 2024 that it had delayed in providing respite support for her three disabled children.
22. The Council responded in November. It did not uphold her complaint.
23. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s response and so escalated her complaint to stage two shortly after. The Council accepted Miss X’s complaint and appointed an IO promptly.
24. The IO completed the stage two report in April 2025. It did not uphold that the Council had completed an inadequate assessment of the children’s needs nor that the recommendations following the assessment were insufficient.
25. The IO upheld that the Council delayed in completing the child and family assessment by 39 days. It did not make a finding on whether Council officers made inappropriate comments to Miss X during the assessment.
26. The IP agreed with the IO’s findings and recommendations.
27. The AO wrote to Miss X shortly after agreeing to all of the IO’s findings and recommendations.
28. Miss X was unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation and escalated her complaint to stage three at the end of April.
29. The stage three panel took place in June. The panel decided that the Council’s child and family assessment was inadequate and upheld this complaint which was not upheld at stage one and two. Specifically, the panel found:

• The social worker failed to see the children at home, which while is not a statutory requirement, would be best practice. The panel noted this may have contributed to the Council’s failure to understand the overall impact of Miss X caring for all three children, who have a high level of care needs.
• Investigation reports did not adequately explain the Council’s view that it was safe for one of the children to be cared for by a family member and failed to consider Miss X’s views on this.
• The panel did not consider the Council’s recommendations for respite support to be reasonable, given the high needs of the children.
• The Council’s website stated that the minimum age for overnight respite was eight, but in reality it is 11. This raised Miss X’s expectations into thinking overnight respite was a viable solution for all her children, when it wasn’t.
• Case recording inadequately reflected conversations and meetings with the family and there may have been a lack of professional curiosity into alternative respite options.

30. The panel agreed with the remainder of the stage two findings.
31. The Council wrote to Miss X shortly after. It agreed with the findings of the panel and made seven recommendations, which included:

• Reminding social workers that it is considered best practice to visit a child in their own home when completing an assessment, the importance of accurate and reasonably detailed case recording and the value of using professional curiosity.
• Providing social workers with appropriate information about respite options.
• Amending the Council’s website to be accurate about any lower age limit for providing overnight respite.
• Completing a new child and family reassessment with the family, alongside a parent carer assessment with Miss X.

32. The Council also offered to make a payment of £500 to Miss X to recognise the emotional distress caused by its delays and failure to follow best practice.
33. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me:

• It had completed all the reminders to social workers about best practice to visit a child in their own home when completing an assessment, the importance of accurate and reasonably detailed case recording and the value of using professional curiosity.
• The Council provided a 90-minute presentation on professional curiosity for social workers.
• It had worked with social workers to ensure they know local respite options, including a presentation to the team and appointing a new resource officer who sends weekly updates to social workers about resources including respite.
• It had amended its website to reflect that overnight respite was only ordinarily available for secondary school age children.
• A child and family reassessment was completed in November 2025 by a senior social worker. This also included a parent/carer assessment with Miss X.

34. The Council told me it had not made the £500 payment to Miss X but that it would make this as a priority

Findings

The Council’s investigations into Miss X’s complaint

35. If a complaint has already been through the second stage of the Children Act complaints procedure, this means they have already had access to an independent investigation. Consequently, we will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed.
36. I have considered the documents from Miss X’s complaint, and I note that:
• All parts of the complaint were considered and addressed by the Council.
• The independent investigation report refers to relevant procedure and case records. These case records support the investigator’s findings.
• The Council considered Miss X’s desired outcomes and explained its view about these.
• Miss X did not complain directly about any issues with the statutory complaint procedure.
• There do not appear to be any obvious errors in the Council’s handling of the complaint which undermine its findings.
37. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said. If I were to reinvestigate the complaint, it is also unlikely that this would lead to a substantially different outcome for Miss X. So, a reinvestigation would be of no benefit to her.

The Council’s recommendations

38. I have also considered whether the Council’s remedies properly recognise the injustice it has caused Miss X and whether these were carried out without delay.
39. The Council completed most of the recommendations within a reasonable timeframe. This included the service improvements related to social worker knowledge and amendments to its website.
40. I note the Council told Miss X it would carry out a child and family reassessment in June 2025. However, it did not begin this until September 2025 and did not complete it until November 2025.
41. The Council explained that it delayed the assessment so it would not take place during the school summer holidays, allowing schools to provide its views. Although this meant the reassessment started about three months later than planned, I consider the Council’s reason for the delay to be reasonable. So, I do not find any fault in the actions of the Council here.
42. In relation to whether the remedies properly recognise the injustice it caused, I have firstly considered what that injustice was. The faults identified by the procedure relate to a delayed and inadequate assessment of the children’s needs.
43. I cannot say, on the balance of probabilities, whether the Council’s delayed and inadequate assessment in June 2024 resulted in Miss X and her children missing out on respite support. I accept that Miss X has provided evidence of what the children’s needs were at this time, and how this impacted on her, but, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to make a retrospective decision on what the outcome of the assessment would or should have been.
44. Comparing the assessment completed in November 2025 would not help me determine what the children’s needs were in June 2024, as there was a gap of 17 months between the two assessments. I cannot assume their needs were the same throughout that period.
45. I recognise that Miss X also says that this has affected her and her family’s physical and mental health and caused long term medical issues. We also cannot make clinical findings, so I would be unable to say if any emotional, psychological or physical harm was of a direct result of the Council’s actions. The courts are best placed to rule on this.
46. For these reasons, I consider the identifiable injustice caused by the Council’s actions related to the assessment, respite and website information to Miss X and her children was likely limited to frustration, uncertainty and distress. The uncertainty mainly being that there were no reliable records of the children’s needs and any impact on Miss X. The Council’s delayed and inadequate assessment likely deprived the family of a genuine assessment and proper consideration of support needed. If Miss X remains unhappy with the respite support following the November 2025 assessment, then she has the option of raising this with the Council.
47. The Council has already apologised for this and offered a financial remedy of £500. This was in line with our guidance on remedies and I have no grounds to recommend an increase in its offer. But, I understand the Council failed to make this payment to Miss X. This significantly delayed payment was fault, which likely caused Miss X further frustration. I will ask the Council to apologise for the delay in making the payment and provide evidence it has now done so.

Back to top

Action

48. Within a month of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Miss X for the frustration caused to her by failing to make the agreed payment. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology;
• provide evidence that it has made a payment of £500 to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused to her by the faults identified in the statutory complaint procedure.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman