Summary: The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint about its decision to not provide an assistance dog for her child Y under the statutory children’s complaints procedure without fault. The Council has already apologised and offered an appropriate symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused by the faults it found. However, it failed to respond to a new complaint Mrs X raised during the statutory procedure which caused her distress. It agreed to make an additional payment to Mrs X and respond to the complaint without further delay.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide an assistance dog for her child, Y to meet their social care needs. The Council investigated Ms X’s complaints under the statutory children’s complaints procedure however she was unhappy with the outcome.
2. Ms X said the matter has caused her, Y and the wider family distress and upset. She wants the Council to recognise that assistance dogs can be used to meet social care needs, and to meet the ongoing costs of Y’s assistance dog which she privately paid for.

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 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I considered information from the Council including the stage two investigation report, the stage three panel report and the relevant adjudication letters from the statutory complaint procedure. I also considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
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

The statutory complaints 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. 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 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.

Children in Need

17. The Children Act 1989, section 17, requires councils to safeguard and promote the welfare of ‘children in need’ in their area, including disabled children, by providing appropriate services for them. All disabled children are regarded as ‘children in need’ and entitled to an assessment under section 17.
18. The expectation of ‘Working Together’ is that an assessment which identifies significant needs will generally lead to the provision of services, but it is not the case that there is a duty to meet every assessed need. Whether a service is required is dependent on the nature and extent of the need assessed and the consequences of not providing a service. Councils may use eligibility criteria and take into account their available resources when providing services under section 17 of the Children Act.

What happened

19. The following chronology provides a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It does not include every detail of what happened.
20. Mrs X has a child, Y who at the time of complaint was of secondary school age. Y has significant learning and emotional disabilities. Mrs X asked the Council to assess Y’s needs to find out if they qualified for support. Records show Mr and Mrs X wanted support in the way of a ‘buddy’ for Y to assist them in accessing community activities and groups independently.
21. The Council carried out a Child in Need (CIN) assessment in March 2023. Following this the Council said Y was entitled to six hours a week direct payments for a personal assistant. Mrs X wanted to use the direct payments to pay for an assistance dog (dog) for Y which they believe would support Y’s needs. She said the idea of a dog was raised previously as part of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan review.
22. The Council took the matter to its Resource and Care panel in April 2024 who approved the direct payments for a personal assistant but not for the dog.

Mrs X’s complaint

23. Mrs X complained to the Council in May 2024 about its decision to refuse direct payments for the dog. She said the decision was wrong and the Council had not provided justification for the refusal. Mrs X said she provided lots of evidence to support why the dog would better meet Y’s needs than a personal assistant.
24. The Council provided a stage one response under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. Mrs X was unhappy with the stage one response and escalated it to stage two.

Stage two investigation

25. The investigating officer (IO) issued their report in September 2024 and investigated 13 points of complaint. These included:
• The decision to refuse direct payments for the dog was ill informed
• The review of the decision was meaningless and ineffective
• Y’s CIN assessment was based on their EHC Plan which was out of date
• Mrs X has not been provided with answers to basic questions
• Relevant information and the purpose of direct payments was ignored
• Y’s support plan was marked as being created ‘in collaboration with Mrs X’ when she says it was not.
26. The IO upheld three complaints and partially upheld two. It made no finding on two elements and did not uphold the others. The IO found the panel had insufficient information about the dog at the time and could have waited for further assessments to be available. However this would have delayed the direct payments for Y’s assessed needs. The IO recommended a fresh CIN assessment.
27. The IO further upheld that the completed CIN assessment used out of date information and contained some omissions and inaccuracies. It said Mrs X should have had sight of it to challenge any parts she disagreed with. The IO also said some questions raised by Mrs X about the Council’s decision making were not sufficiently responded to. She was given different information by different departments. Overall the IO said the Council made the decision using professional judgements with the information available to it at the time.
28. The IP wrote their report which supported the IO’s findings and recommendations. The IP was satisfied the IO had conducted a fair and thorough investigation of the complaints raised.
29. The stage two adjudication officer wrote to Mrs X in October 2024. They agreed with the IO findings and recommendation. These were to carry out a fresh CIN assessment and complete learning around departments working together and ensuring parents are consulted through assessments. Overall, the stage two process took 31 working days longer than allowed.
30. Following the stage two investigation Mrs X remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to stage three. The Council also completed a fresh CIN assessment which Mrs X was unhappy with and asked how she could challenge it.
31. Mrs X raised new concerns about the second CIN assessment in her stage three escalation including not being involved in the assessment and that the social worker was biased and inappropriate.

Stage three independent panel

32. The stage three panel met in February 2025 to consider Mrs X’s complaints which were not upheld. The panel changed one finding from partially upheld to upheld but agreed with all the other findings from the IO report.
33. The panel made various recommendations including for the Council to seek information about the role of assistance dogs in meeting a child’s assessed social care needs.
34. The panel concluded the substantive matter was that Mrs X wanted a dog for Y but it was not in the panel’s remit to take a view on CIN assessment outcomes. The panel said any concerns Mrs X had about the second CIN assessment should be a new complaint as it did not form part of the stage two investigation. The panel noted Mrs X had now privately funded a dog for Y.
35. The stage three adjudicator agreed with the panel’s findings and recommendations. They apologised to Mrs X for the upheld complaints and offered her a symbolic payment of £500 to acknowledge any injustice caused.
36. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.
37. Following the conclusion of the statutory process Mrs X made a new complaint to the Council about the second CIN assessment which the stage three panel declined to consider. The complaint also covered dissatisfaction with the stage three panel’s consideration of her funding request for the dog, and how the social worker considered information and dealt with the family throughout the matter.
38. The Council provided a new stage one response to Mrs X in March 2025 however this did not deal with or directly responded to the concerns about the second CIN assessment.

The Council’s response to us

39. The Council clarified that at no time did it recommended or consider an assistance dog as being necessary or appropriate to meet Y’s assessed social care needs. The Council said Mrs X arranged a private purchase of a dog for Y however the Council was not involved in the arrangement and has declined to make any financial contributions towards the cost of owning it.
40. Following the investigation the Council met with its Clinical Psychologist so they are aware of the potential of assistance dogs going forward and can consider it as an option in any professional advice provided. It has discussed this in open forums and half yearly meetings with staff. It says the head of service has met with teams about ensuring parents have the opportunity to respond to the content of CIN assessments prior to signing off the reports.
41. The Council has carried out a review of how it handles children’s statutory complaints procedures including how it keeps complainants informed throughout.
42. The Council acknowledged delays in the complaints process and commits to making the £500 payment already offered.
43. Regarding the complaint about the second CIN assessment the Council believed it responded to it in a response to Mrs X issued in March 2025.

My findings

44. It is not our role to reinvestigate matters which have already been subject to a properly conducted and independent investigation. To do so would not be a good use of public resources. Instead, our role is to consider the following:
• was the investigation properly conducted and are the conclusions evidence based. If not, would the Ombudsman reach a different view based on the information available to us?;
• did the Council offer a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by fault? If not, would the Ombudsman recommend any further remedial action?; and
• has the Council fully implemented any agreed remedy? If not, has the delay caused any further injustice to the complainant.
45. The stage two investigation and stage three panel review were properly conducted, albeit there were delays at both stage two and three of the process which the Council has acknowledged. The stage two took 31 days longer than allowed and it took 64 working days longer than allowed to hold the stage three panel meeting. These delays were fault.
46. During the complaints process the IO reviewed and considered case records, met with Mrs X, and carried out interviews with relevant officers who were available. The Independent Person (IP) raised no concerns and agreed with the IO’s findings and conclusions. The stage three panel independently considered Mrs X’s concerns but concurred with the stage two findings. There was no fault in how the Council considered the complaints so I accept the findings.
47. The complaints process identified some areas of fault which are outlined above and which the Council has fully accepted, acknowledged and apologised for. It has explained the action it has taken against the recommendations. I am satisfied with the progress it has made to prevent recurrence of the faults found in this case. It has also apologised and offered Mrs X a payment of £500. This payment is appropriate to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X by the faults found and the delays in the statutory process. The Council has committed to paying this to Mrs X and it is open for her to contact the Council to accept this payment.
48. Ultimately, Mrs X’s main complaint was about the Council’s decision not to fund the assistance dog for Y. Although there was fault in how the Council carried out the CIN assessment, the Council’s decision has remained the same throughout, despite Mrs X providing supporting evidence. So, on balance, the decision would have remained the same but for the fault.
49. However, Mrs X made a new complaint during the process about the second CIN assessment which was recommended following the stage two investigation. The stage three panel correctly declined to consider these concerns as it was outside its remit having not been part of the stage two investigation. The Council has not responded to these concerns and it was not responded to in its March 2025 response. This was fault and has caused Mrs X distress.
50. It is acknowledged Mrs X has ongoing concerns about the conduct of the social worker. Complaints of this nature should be referred to the social workers’ professional body, Social Work England and my understanding is Mrs X has already done this which is the appropriate route to take. I have therefore not investigated this point.

Back to top

Action

51. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 to recognise the distress caused to her by its failure to provide a complaint response about the second CIN assessment. 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.
2. Provide a complaint response to Mrs X’s concerns about the second CIN assessment.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

53. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman