Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council’s handling of Mrs X’s request for increased respite care and its complaint handling. This is because the Council has not yet completed all three stages of the statutory children’s complaint procedure, and it would be reasonable to allow it to do so. In addition, the Council has already accepted and remedied the delays identified at earlier stages, so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council mispresented her child’s needs, made incorrect statements, lacked transparency in decision-making and delayed responding to her complaints. Mrs X said this caused her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• It would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X made a Stage 1 complaint under the statutory children’s complaint procedure in April 2025 after the Children with Disabilities panel rejected her request for increased respite care. The Council apologised for the delay in the response and explained the rationale for its decision. Mrs X escalated the complaint to a Stage 2 independent investigation in May 2025.
6. The Council accepted there were faults in how it assessed the child’s needs, recorded short-break usage, and communicated decisions. It also acknowledged delay and lack of policy clarity around review timescales. The Stage 2 investigation recommended a new child and family assessment, clearer explanations after panel decisions, consideration of an appeals process, and improved transparency in decision-making. The Council also offered £250 for the time and trouble caused due to delays in its responses.
7. The statutory complaints process includes a third stage: an independent review panel. Mrs X has not yet used this stage. Given the statutory complaint process is not yet complete, it is reasonable for Mrs X to request a Stage 3 review if she is dissatisfied with the Council’s stage 2 response or remedy offered.
8. The Council has satisfactorily remedied the fault caused by delays in the process. Therefore, we will not investigate this because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X complaint because it would be reasonable for her to ask for Stage 3 review and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman