Summary: Mr X complained the Council completed an assessment about his daughter without involving him. He also says the Council’s assessment and Child in Need plan contained significant inaccuracies, and the Council failed to correct the record. We find the Council was at fault for failing to contact Mr X using all the available contact methods before completing its assessment. It also delayed responding to his complaint. These faults caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to him and implement a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council completed an assessment about his daughter (Y) without involving him. He also says the Council’s assessment and Child in Need plan contained significant inaccuracies, and the Council failed to correct the record.
2. Mr X says the Council’s failures have caused significant emotional and financial harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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).
6. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory complaints procedures

9. 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.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage 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.
12. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
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. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
15. 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. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
16. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

Child in Need

17. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare.
18. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days.
19. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency Child in Need (CiN) plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the CiN plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 

South Gloucestershire Children’s Partnership Procedures

20. The Council’s manual says the assessment process must be open and transparent. All parents or caregivers should be involved equally in the assessment and should be supported to participate. However, the welfare of the child must not be overshadowed by parental needs. There may be exceptions to the involvement of parents or caregivers in cases of sexual abuse or domestic abuse.

What happened

21. This chronology includes an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
22. The Council received an anonymous referral in July 2024 alleging coercive controlling behaviours from Mr X.
23. The Council reviewed the referral and decided the case met the threshold for a CiN assessment.
24. The Council visited Y and her mother (Mrs Z) in mid-August. It tried phoning Mr X in late August with the number it had on its system. It did not receive a reply and there was no ability to leave a voicemail.
25. The Council emailed Mr X in September with the email address it had on file. It received a response that said “mailbox not found”. The Council sent a text message to Mr X, but it was returned as undeliverable.
26. At the same time, the Council sent an email to a member of staff at Y’s school and asked for a contact number for Mr X. The member of staff did not respond.
27. The Council completed its assessment in mid-September. It also drew up a CiN plan for Y and held a CiN meeting.
28. The Council transferred Y’s case to a different team in late September.
29. The Council visited Mrs Z and Y in early October. Mrs Z provided the Council with Mr X’s telephone numbers.
30. The Council contacted Mr X and visited him in late October. He complained after the meeting and said it had excluded him from the assessment and planning process.
31. Following a meeting with Mr X in early December, the Council put a hazard warning on Y’s file. This warning said the Council had failed to contact Mr X during the assessment process and therefore it had not considered and included his views in the assessment. The warning also Mr X had now shared his views about the assessment in correspondence which it had saved in attachments.
32. The Council issued two stage one responses to Mr X’s complaint in December. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said there could have been a further attempt to contact Mr X via letter given it had his home address. It also said its comment in the assessment that he had not responded was inaccurate. Finally, it said it could not change the assessment. However, it would write a summary to keep on file which would set out his views.
33. Mr X emailed the Council in late December. He said it had not explained why it had replaced his accurate contact details, which it had used from December 2022 onwards, with inaccurate details. He also said the failure to engage with him undermined the impartiality and credibility of the assessment. He suggested the Council should put in place service improvements. He said if it did not remain committed to resolving his complaint, he wanted his concerns escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure.
34. Mr X emailed the Council in mid-January 2025 and confirmed he wanted it progress to stage two.
35. The Council allocated an IO and IP to the case in late January. They met with him in February.
36. Mr X agreed a statement of complaint in March. This included complaints about the Council’s delay in contacting him and its failure to engage with him during the assessment process. Mr X also complained about a flawed assessment (including a misrepresentation of Y’s school’s views) and CiN plan which the Council had failed to correct and the Council’s failure to confirm a hazard warning had been applied to the assessment which accurately reflected his wording.
37. The IO completed her report in late April. She partially upheld three of Mr X’s complaints. She decided the Council did attempt to contact Mr X and it had not deliberately excluded him from the process. However, it had not explored all avenues to contact him. She also decided while it would have been best practice to involve Mr X in the assessment, it did not mean it was unfit for purpose. The Council had appended Mr X’s 42-page detailed response to the case record.
38. For Mr X’s other complaints, the IO concluded the Council was not required to comply with Mr X’s specific wording for the hazard warning, and the existing warning directed the reader to Mr X’s views and comments on the assessment. The IO also said Y’s initial CiN plan was not fundamentally flawed and the information the school said was inaccurate information could be substantiated. However, the Council had taken reasonable steps to include information about the school’s disagreement with the assessment by way of the meeting minutes and emails.
39. The IO recommended the Council apologise to Mr X for not contacting him in writing during the assessment.
40. The Council considered the IO’s findings. It sent a letter to Mr X in mid-May and apologised for its failure to share a copy of the assessment with him in a timely manner. It said this was not in line with good practice.
41. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his case to a stage three.
42. The Council arranged a remote panel hearing for July. Mr X asked for an in person hearing because of the complexities of the complaint.
43. Mr X attended a panel meeting in October. The panel concluded Mr X was unaware of assessment until October 2024. The Council had also failed to note it did not have a reply from its email to the school asking for contact information for Mr X. It decided this part of his complaint should be upheld rather than partially upheld.
44. The panel decided the Council had not complied with policies and procedures about requiring parents to be involved in assessments and therefore changed this finding from not upheld to upheld. It decided that the absence of Mr X’s views did not invalidate the assessment and changed this finding from partially upheld to not upheld. The panel agreed with the IO’s findings for the rest of Mr X’s complaints.
45. The panel asked the Council to consider whether its apology went far enough to reflect the IO’s findings.
46. The Council issued its response to the panel finings in November. It said it accepted the panel’s recommendations, and they had all been met.

Back to top

Analysis

47. Mr X became aware of the events in his complaint in October 2024, but he did not refer his complaint to us until November 2025. We usually expect someone to refer their complaint to us within 12 months of becoming aware about something a council has done. In Mr X’s case, he complained to the Council promptly in October 2024. The Council did not complete the complaints process until November 2025. Mr X’s delay referring his complaint to us was because of the time it took for the Council to deal with his complaint. Therefore, I have exercised discretion to investigate Mr X’s complaint.
48. I am satisfied the Council completed a comprehensive and thorough independent investigation through the statutory complaints procedure. I do not consider the investigation was flawed and therefore I have not re-investigated the substantive matters (paragraphs 15 and 16 of this statement). I have however considered whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether its remedy was sufficient to address Mr X’s injustice.
49. The panel asked the Council to consider whether its apology went far enough to reflect the IO’s findings. When the Council issued it stage three response, it said it had accepted the panel’s recommendations, and they had all been met. It did not provide any explanation as to why it was satisfied its apology reflected the IO’s findings. This is fault.
50. The Council’s fault in not exploring all the avenues in contacting Mr X before completing the assessment has caused him significant frustration and distress. I am satisfied, on balance, Mr X would have fully engaged in the assessment process if he had been aware of it. The Council’s fault has deprived him of this. He also has significant uncertainty about what the content of the assessment, CiN plan and outcome may have been if he had contributed. The Council’s apology does not go far enough to reflect this injustice. I also consider an apology alone is not sufficient for Mr X’s injustice. I have made other suitable recommendations.
51. The Council’s fault in not explaining in its stage three letter why it was satisfied with the apology has also caused Mr X further frustration.
52. The Council also failed to respond to Mr X’s complaint in line with the timescales in the statutory complaints procedure. This is fault. It did not issue its stage one responses within 20 working days. It sent the first stage one response within 32 working days, and its second stage one response within 38 working days.
53. The stage two process should have taken no longer than 65 working days. In Mr X’s case, it took 80 working days.
54. Finally, the Council should have held the panel hearing within 30 working days. While I understand Mr X asked for an in-person hearing, it took the Council far too long to arrange an alternative date. The hearing took place 103 working days after Mr X escalated his complaint to stage three. The Council also did not issue its final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
55. The Council’s delays in dealing with Mr X’s complaint caused him further frustration. While I note the Council apologised to Mr X when it issued its stage one and stage three responses, I do not consider that alone is sufficient to reflect Mr X’s injustice. I have made a further recommendation.

Back to top

Action

56. By 14 October 2026 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr X to reflect the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Pay Mr X £275 to reflect the frustration caused by the delays in responding to his complaint.
• Pay Mr X £200 to reflect his distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to explore all methods of communication and thoroughly engage with him before it completed its assessment.
• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure where appropriate they must make reasonable attempts, and use all available methods of communication, to contact both parents during an assessment under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
• Place a copy of this decision on Y’s file, so that its records set out the findings above.

57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

58. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman