Summary: The Council was at fault for a four month delay in considering Miss X’s complaint at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed considering her complaint at stage two of the statutory complaints procedure. Miss X said this caused her distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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 the 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss 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

Relevant law and guidance

7. 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.
8. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
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. 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.

What happened

13. Miss X made a complaint in early June 2025 through the statutory complaints procedure about the Council’s investigation into safeguarding concerns raised and its social services involvement with Miss X and her family.
14. The Council issued its stage one complaint response in early July 2025 which was within the 20-working day timescale. Miss X requested the Council consider her complaint at stage two in mid-July 2025.
15. The Council allocated the complaint to an investigating officer (IO) and independent person (IP) at the start of August and they contacted Miss X in mid-August. The Council should have completed the whole stage two process by mid-November 2025.
16. The IO issued the stage two investigation report at the end of October 2025 but the adjudicating officer (AO) did not consider this and send it to Miss X until mid-March 2026.
17. Miss X was dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us.

My findings

18. After Miss X requested the Council consider her complaint at stage two, the Council had 65 workings days to complete the whole stage two process so by mid-November 2025. This included the AO considering the stage two report, deciding what action the Council would take and writing to Miss X with a copy of the report.
19. The Council failed to complete the stage two process until mid-March 2026 at which point the AO sent Miss X the investigation report and the Council’s response. This was a delay of four months and fault which caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

20. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Miss X for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays in completing the stage two investigation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Pay Miss X £200 for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays in completing the stage two investigation.
21. Within three months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Review this case to identify why there was a significant delay in the Council considering the stage two report and create an action plan to prevent this from occurring in the future.
22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman