Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the delays in the Council’s consideration of Miss X’s children’s statutory complaint. This is because the Council has already apologised for the delays. Therefore, there is no significant injustice remaining to justify our involvement. Nor will look at Miss X’s complaint about the substantive matters, because Miss X had not asked the Council to complete all stages of the procedure, and it would be reasonable to expect her to do so.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council removed her child, Y, from his Child in Need (CIN) plan and failed to complete a multi-agency assessment. Miss X also complained about the delays in the Council’s handling of her statutory children’s services complaint. She said the Council failed to meet the stage one and stage two deadline. Miss X said these failings have caused her frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
3. 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

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• 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

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. Miss X made a Stage one complaint under the statutory children’s complaint procedure in February 2025. The Council suspended her complaint until a separate on-going Stage two investigation for her other child was complete. The Council unsuspended the complaint in March and provided a response in April. The Council apologised for delay in response and that is an appropriate response. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of her complaint as there is no significant injustice remaining to justify our involvement.
7. Miss X escalated the complaint to a Stage two independent investigation in May 2025. The Council sent their Stage two response in October 2025. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay. The Council has satisfactorily remedied the injustice caused by delays in the process. As such, we will not investigate this because there is no significant injustice remaining to justify our involvement.
8. The statutory complaints process included a third stage, an independent review panel. The evidence shows Miss X decided not to proceed with this stage. Given the statutory complaint process is not yet complete, it would have been reasonable to expect Miss X to proceed through the three stages and have requested a Stage three review if she had been dissatisfied with the Council’s stage two response. Therefore, we will not investigate the substantive issues she has raised with us.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X complaint, the Council has apologised for the delays to the complaint, and there is no significant injustice remaining to justify our involvement. Additionally, it would be reasonable for have expected her to have asked for Stage three panel review and complete the process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman