Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to identify and meet Ms X’s child’s social care needs, and failed to properly address her subsequent complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to properly assess or provide social care support for her child, Y, and failed to properly consider her complaint under the statutory procedure.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s complaint concerns the period between February 2024 and March 2026, during which Y was issued with an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan and was undergoing social care needs assessments.
7. Ms X complained the Council found that her child did not have social care needs, despite the contrary finding of the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). She says the Council used inappropriate criteria when assessing her child, and that this led to a flawed decision not to provide services.
8. The Council considered Ms X’s complaint under the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. Despite some finding of fault at the Stage 3 review panel, the complaint was not substantially upheld. The Council accepted it could have supported Ms X more proactively and made recommendations to review its procedure.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because it has completed the statutory children’s services complaint procedure and there is no evidence of significant fault in the way it did so.
10. The statutory children’s complaint 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 procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. That is the case here.
11. The Stage 2 Investigating Officer’s report properly addressed the agreed statement of complaint and made proportionate and defensible findings. Ms X disagrees with these findings, but that does not mean they are flawed. She used her right to escalate the matter to the Review Panel. The report of the Review Panel’s meeting shows that Ms X was able to submit evidence, and the Panel properly considered the matters before it. The outcome was a matter for the Panel members’ professional judgment.
12. Ms X raises issues with the conduct of the Review Panel, specifically the Chair being related to the Stage 2 investigator and refusing to review new documents meaning Ms X felt she could not check whether evidence was ignored. There is no evidence to support these assertions, therefore we would be unlikely to find fault.
13. Without evidence of fault in the complaint process which calls the outcome into question it is not for the Ombudsman to reconsider the outcome, or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman