Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to use the children’s statutory complaints procedure to respond to Miss X’s complaint about its treatment of her and her child. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration for which the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. It will also consider Miss X’s complaint again, using the statutory procedure.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council had not provided her and her child with social care support she felt they needed. Miss X said this impacted on her and her child’s welfare.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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.
4. 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(i), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

Relevant law and guidance

The children’s statutory complaints procedure

8. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about certain children’s social care services. Councils must use the procedure where they receive a complaint about a matter that falls under the scope of the procedure.
9. This includes complaints about actions a council has taken in relation to section 17 of the Children Act 1989. This section requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. All disabled children are regarded as ‘children in need’ and entitled to an assessment under section 17. These assessments are sometimes called child and family assessments.
10. Councils also provide early help services to children and families who need additional support, with the aim of preventing their needs escalating. Councils typically deliver most early help services using section 17 of the Children Act 1989. However, section 10 of the Children Act 2004 places a duty on councils to cooperate with other agencies involved in the wellbeing of children. When a child or family are receiving early help support which requires input from other agencies, councils normally provide that support using section 10 of the Children Act 2004. That act does not come under the remit of the statutory complaints procedure.
11. 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. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
12. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. Once a complaint has entered stage one, the council is obliged to ensure it proceeds to stage 2 and 3 if the complainant wants this to happen. At stage two 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.

What happened

15. Miss X’s child has additional needs which led the Council to provide early help services. Miss X obtained a copy of the Council’s record from that period and was unhappy with a comment her case manager made about her in those records. Miss X was also unhappy her early help case manager had referred her to the Council’s school enforcement team because her child’s attendance at school was still low despite support having been put in place. She complained to the Council, which responded under its corporate complaints procedure.
16. In June 2025, Miss X complained to the Council again. She said she was unhappy her case manager had not been changed to someone else. Miss X subsequently raised further concerns with the Council. Those concerns included that she was unhappy the Council had since decided, following a child and family assessment, that her child did not need ongoing social care support, and that she did not need respite from caring for her child.
17. The Council issued a final response to Miss X’s concerns in late September 2025, where it confirmed its view that Miss X and her child did not need ongoing social care input. The Council explained Miss X could complain to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
18. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman and in March 2026 we asked the Council to carry out a stage two investigation into Miss X’s concerns about its social care support under the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
19. The Council questioned the value of this, because Miss X’s child was undergoing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) assessment. It said that assessment might result in the additional support Miss X was seeking. An EHC Plan is a legal document which sets out the educational, health and social needs a child has and what support is necessary to meet those needs.

Findings

20. 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. This independence is not available to complaints put through the corporate complaints procedure. Because of this, we expect people to complete the statutory complaints procedure before we will consider whether there were any flaws in how the Council investigated their concerns. Where an investigation has completed all three stages we will normally only focus on whether a council has correctly followed the procedure and considered any recommendations. I have therefore not investigated Miss X’s concerns about the support the Council provided to her and her child.
21. When councils receive complaints which come under the statutory procedure, they must use it. The Council has confirmed it primarily provides its early help service using the duty set out in section 17 of the Children Act 1989. It uses section 10 of the Children Act 2004 when it is providing targeted support alongside other agencies. Miss X’s complaint about early help related to actions the Council took without other agencies’ involvement so on balance of probabilities, it is likely that the actions Miss X complained about were delivered using section 17 of the Children Act 1989. This means the complaint came under the statutory complaints procedure and the Council was at fault for not using it.
22. In addition, child and family assessments are carried out under section 17 of the Act. Therefore, Miss X’s later complaint about the outcome of that assessment also came under the statutory complaints procedure. The Council was again at fault for failing to use the procedure when it was required to. The faults meant Miss X missed out on receiving an independent investigation into her concerns, which caused her frustration.
23. The Council cannot decline to use the procedure on the basis that a statutory investigation would not have value. In any event, the Council’s view is not persuasive. An EHC assessment may result in Miss X’s child having an EHC Plan, but that is not a guarantee. Furthermore, if Miss X’s child does receive an EHC Plan after the assessment, that Plan will set out the educational, social care and health support the child needs at the time the Plan is issued. It cannot provide a remedy for any support the Council should have provided before the Plan was issued. Nor could it address Miss X’s concerns about the comment her case manager made about her, or about the decision to refer her to the school enforcement team.

Back to top

Action

24. Within one month of the date of my final decision the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty she experienced because of 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 Miss X £200 to recognise that injustice.
3. Begin a stage two investigation into Miss X’s complaint. The Council must complete the investigation within 65 working days. When it completes the stage two investigation, the Council will tell Miss X of her right to request a stage three panel.
25. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman