Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in the Council’s handling of her complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council was at fault. It did not follow statutory timescales when considering Mrs X’s complaint. This caused distress and frustration to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment, and progress stage three without further delay.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s delays in its consideration of her complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. As a result, she says she has suffered distress, and she and her daughter have been prevented from accessing support. Mrs X would like the Council to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and carry out a formal parent carer needs assessment under the Children and Families Act 2014.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. The children’s statutory complaint procedure has not yet been completed. I have therefore not investigated the substantive matters of Mrs X’s complaint or considered whether there have been any flaws in how the Council has investigated Mrs X’s concerns so far. My consideration of the complaint has focused on the Council’s delays in its handling of Mrs X’s complaint, with the aim of getting the statutory complaint procedure re-engaged and completed.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
7. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs 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

Children’s statutory complaint procedure

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. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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, we expect people to complete the complaints procedure before we will consider whether there were any flaws in how the Council investigated their concerns.

Back to top

What happened

15. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
16. Mrs X complained to the Council at the end of August 2025. The Council sent its stage one complaint response to Mrs X in mid-September 2025. Mrs X raised a stage two complaint with the Council a week later. The IO and IP reports were completed and sent to the Council at the end of October 2025. The Council wrote to Mrs X with the outcome of the stage two investigation in early January 2026. Mrs X sent her stage three request to the Council around the same time.
17. The stage three panel was arranged to take place in late February 2026, however Mrs X informed the Council she could no longer attend on the agreed date due to personal circumstances. In mid-March 2026, the Council told Mrs X there were delays in it arranging a new panel date for March due to conflicting availabilities of the panel members. It asked Mrs X when she would be available in April or May to attend the panel instead. Mrs X responded with her available dates around two weeks later.
18. In early April 2026, the Council confirmed to Mrs X the panel had been arranged for the first week of May 2026. The panel did not go ahead on the agreed date. This is because Mrs X had a pre-panel meeting with the panel chair, where Mrs X says she felt there were misunderstandings about the nature of the panel which made her feel hesitant about proceeding. However, she contacted the Council shortly after and told it she wished to proceed with stage three. The Council says the availability of the IO has caused difficulties in arranging a new panel date, however it has now arranged the stage three panel to take place in late June 2026.

Back to top

Analysis

19. The Council responded to Mrs X’s stage one complaint within the statutory timescale. The Council should have then completed stage two within 65 working days of Mrs X’s stage two request. So, the Council should have sent its stage two response in late December 2025. The Council did not do this. It sent its stage two response to Mrs X on 8 January 2026 which was around two and a half weeks later than the 65 working day statutory timescale. This was fault.
20. On receipt of Mrs X’s stage three request, the Council should have held the stage three panel within 30 working days. Following the panel, it should have issued a stage three response to Mrs X within 20 working days. So, the Council should have held the panel by mid-to-late February 2026 and issued a stage three response by mid-to-late March 2026. The Council did not do this. This was fault.
21. Mrs X brought her complaint to us as the Council has not yet held a stage three panel. The Council says it acknowledges it has not met the stage three statutory timescale but says it does not consider the delay is a result of inaction. Rather, it says the stage three delays have arisen due to issues outside of its control such as staff availability. The Council has also pointed out that it has previously arranged two stage three panels which did not go ahead. In February 2026, which Mrs X asked to reschedule as her availability changed, and in May 2026, which the Council says Mrs X did not initially wish to proceed with following a discussion with the panel chair.
22. The first panel date was arranged for late February 2026, which I recognise the Council rearranged to accommodate Mrs X’s availability. But this date already exceeded the 30-working day timescale. Further, the Council says Mrs X did not initially wish to proceed with the panel arranged in May 2026, which led to the panel being rescheduled for June 2026. But, even if Mrs X had not paused proceeding with the stage three panel in May 2026, this date was six weeks after Mrs X told the Council the new dates that she was available for a panel to take place after the February 2026 panel did not go ahead. I acknowledge the Council says availability of panel members has contributed, and continues to contribute, to the delay, which it says is unavoidable. But this is Council delay, nonetheless. However, I acknowledge a period of around two weeks in March 2026 where the Council was waiting for Mrs X to confirm her availability for a new panel date. I have taken this into account when considering my recommendations.
23. The Council’s failure to follow statutory timeframes and complete the procedure on time has caused roughly a three-month delay, and ongoing. This fault has caused distress and frustration to Mrs X. I have made recommendations below to reflect this.
24. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
25. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.

Back to top

Action

26. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs X by the fault I have identified, within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the distress and frustration caused by the Council’s delays in the statutory complaint procedure. This apology should be made in line with our guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Mrs X £125 for the distress and frustration caused to her by the Council’s complaint-handling delays.
• Hold the stage three panel as arranged, on 23 June 2026. The panel should consider a financial remedy for any further delays. Following the stage three panel, the Council should then issue its stage three response to Mrs X within 20 working days of the panel. In the stage three response, the Council should tell Mrs X she can complain to us if she wishes to do so.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I uphold Mrs X’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman