Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of children’s services. The delay in the Council’s complaints handling did not cause Ms X significant enough injustice to justify our involvement, and it was reasonable for Ms X to ask the Council for a review.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the actions of social workers, procedural failure and the content of a social work report.
2. Ms X said this caused distress and led to a loss of contact with her children.
3. Ms X wants the Council to acknowledge its mistakes, review its processes and pay compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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, 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

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council considered Ms X’s complaint at stage one and stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. There was delay in the Council completing stage two. The Council apologised, provided an explanation and recommended that a Council officer review its complaint handling. It also told Ms X how she could ask the Council for a stage three complaint review.
11. We will not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint. The delay in completing stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure did not cause Ms X injustice significant enough to justify our involvement.
12. 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.
13. Because of this, we expect people to complete the complaints procedure before we will consider whether there were any flaws in how the Council investigated their concerns. Ms X did not request a stage three complaint review.
14. I have therefore not investigated Ms X’s concerns about the actions of social workers, procedural failure and the content of a report. It was reasonable for Ms X to ask the Council to review her complaint at stage three before complaining to us.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the delay in the Council’s complaint handling did not cause injustice significant enough to justify our involvement, and it was reasonable for Ms X to ask the Council for a review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman