Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed in completing stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. The Council was at fault for delaying in starting stage two of the procedure, but this did not cause Mr X a direct injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council delayed in completing stage two of the statutory complaints procedure despite agreeing timeframes to do so in a previous Ombudsman investigation.
2. Mr X says this caused him distress because the matter has been ongoing for more than three years and the Council continues to delay the process. He also says this is impacting on the wellbeing of his children.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed in completing the stage two investigation.
7. I have not investigated Mr X’s substantive complaints. I have explained why in paragraphs 23 - 25.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr 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

Legislation and guidance

Statutory complaints procedures - the three-stage process

10. 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.
11. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. 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. 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.

Early referrals to the LGSCO

13. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all, or all significant complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

What happened?

14. Mr X complained to the Council in 2024 about several issues related to the care of his children. The Council upheld these complaints at stage one. Mr X complained to us in a previous Ombudsman investigation that he was unhappy with the Council’s response.
15. Following this investigation, the Council agreed to complete stage two of the statutory procedure by mid-December 2025.
16. Despite this, the Council did not allocate an independent officer until mid-December 2025.
17. Mr X met with the IO in January 2026. During this meeting Mr X and the IO agreed that starting a stage two investigation into his complaints that had been upheld at stage one, would likely only delay matters further. Instead, Mr X wanted a face-to-face meeting with a senior Council officer to have a written plan for the Council to complete agreed actions. The IO said Mr X would be happy for the stage two investigation to be put on hold.
18. Following this, Mr X continued to raise concerns about the actions of the Council.

Analysis

19. The Council agreed to complete the stage two investigation by mid-December 2025. Despite this, it did not allocate an IO to start the investigation until this time. This continued delay in the stage two investigation was fault.
20. I have considered what injustice, if any, this has caused Mr X. Mr X was given the option of starting the stage two investigation by the Council in mid-December 2025, despite this, he agreed to a mediation meeting with a senior Council officer would likely resolve his concerns quicker. If Mr X was unhappy with this, he had the option of telling the IO and the Council this. For this reason, the Council’s delay did not cause Mr X an injustice and so I will not make any recommendations for any personal remedies.
21. The Council has also recently identified new IO’s to complete stage two investigations to reduce the risk of delays to future cases. I am satisfied with this service improvement and so will not make any further recommendations.
22. I also considered that Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s actions.
23. 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. This independence is not available to complaints put through the corporate complaints procedure. 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.
24. Mr X still has the option of asking the Council to complete the stage two investigations and we expect him to use this right if he remains unhappy. For this reason, we would not investigate any of Mr X’s substantive complaints.
25. If Mr X remains dissatisfied after completing the three stages of the procedure, he can approach us again and ask us to consider investigating his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman