Summary: Miss X complained about the outcome of a complaint she made through the statutory children’s complaint procedure. And that the Council has not completed the recommendations from the stage three response. There was no fault in how the Council completed the statutory complaint’s procedure, so we have no grounds to question or reinvestigate its findings. Regarding the remedies, the Council has provided them, so was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained:
• the Council, over a prolonged period, failed to meet the family’s assessed needs and fulfil its statutory duties. It did not provide appropriate respite, despite identifying this as a need, failed to adequately support the children, and ended the Child in Need plan without proper justification or services in place;

• the Council’s service lacked coordination, failed to attend key meetings, delayed critical processes, and did not follow through on agreed actions;
• about significant failures in communication, record-keeping, and transparency;
• about a failure by the Council to carry through recommendations from the stage 3 complaint response.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Legal and administrative background

6. 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 publish practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
7. 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.
8. Following the investigation, a senior manager 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the 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.

What happened

12. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
13. Miss X complained about how the Council had dealt with the family’s request for overnight respite.
14. The Council issued its stage one response in August 2025. It did not uphold the complaint.
15. Around a week later Miss X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two.
16. Miss X approached the Ombudsman. She said the Council had not completed the stage two investigation within the statutory timescale.
17. The Ombudsman considered Miss X’s complaint and in December 2025 asked the Council to complete the stage two investigation. The Ombudsman also asked the Council to make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the delays in the process. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s decision. We issued a final decision on that complaint.
18. The IO completed the investigation in February 2026. The IP agreed with the IO report. The report partly upheld one of Miss X’s complaints, but did not uphold the other four.
19. The Council issued its adjudication letter at the end of March. The Council accepted the IO report. The Council offered to apologise, pay remedies and provided an update to Miss X.
20. On 15 April Miss X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage three. The stage three panel met on 19 May. The panel considered four parts of Miss X’s complaint and did not consider the fifth part (because the Ombudsman had already made a decision on this part of the complaint). It upheld all the complaints it considered.
21. The panel’s decision confirmed the financial recommendations in the stage two response and included a recommendation for the Council to provide Miss X with an update on its steps to find provision. It also made service improvements.
22. The Council sent Miss X its adjudication letter on 10 June 2026. The Council agreed with the panel recommendations. It provided an update on its work to find provision for Miss X and her family, noting it had looked at the case with senior management oversight, outside its normal process. It also provided an update on the service improvement recommendations.
23. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She advised me the Council has not carried out the recommendations.

My findings

24. The statutory children’s complaint procedure is a statutory procedure the Council has to follow. As set out in paragraphs 10&11, where a council has investigated a complaint under the statutory children’s complaint process, we would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the process was flawed.
25. My investigation considered the actions of the Council after the previous Ombudsman decision (which found delay in the stage two investigation).
26. The IO conducted a thorough and detailed investigation into the matters in the statement of complaint which they agreed with Miss X. The IP oversaw the investigation. The IO spoke to the Council officers involved in this matter. The IO also considered relevant documentation relating to Miss X’s complaint.
27. The IP addressed each of Miss X’s complaints and provided a decision on whether to uphold the complaint. Each decision was supported by the evidence available.
28. The stage three review considered the adequacy of the stage two investigation and reached findings on each element of Miss X’s complaint (except for the part we had adjudicated on). It considered Miss X’s comments and representations. It changed the findings on three parts of Miss X’s complaint.
29. Government has set out a three-stage process. Our role is to look at the administrative actions of the process. We cannot substitute our views for those of council officers where proper processes have been followed, even if the complainant disagrees with the conclusions reached. There was delay at stage two (which we have already considered in an earlier complaint). But there was no other fault in how the Council completed the statutory complaint procedure. I recognise this situation has been distressing for Miss X, but the decisions were taken without fault. I do not find fault with the Council for how it carried out the statutory complaints process, and will therefore not reinvestigate the complaint.
30. The stage three panel and the Council’s response were carried out within 23 and 14 working days respectively. So they met the statutory timescales (see paragraph 9).
31. I have reviewed the Council’s stage three final response letter and what it says about the panel’s recommendations. It offered Miss X the financial remedies recommended and provided an update, including on the service improvements. These fulfill each of the recommendations. So I cannot uphold this part of Miss X’s complaint. I know Miss X believes the payments recommended were inadequate. But in the absence of any administrative fault, I see no reason to question them.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman