Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a child in need assessment and decision. We found fault by the Council for its failure to consider her complaint through the children’s statutory complaints process. It agreed to start this process without delay, apologise to Ms X, and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the delay and trouble this caused her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her son (Y) children services support through the child in need process. She said:
• it caused delays and the family worker who conducted the initial assessment was not suitably qualified. She was told further assessment would be completed, but it then decided this was not necessary; and
• when she complained the Council did not change its view or consider her evidence properly.
2. Ms X said, as a result, she had experienced distress and uncertainty. She also said she has had costs to put support in place for Y.

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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaint which relates to its assessment and decisions around children’s social care.
6. The children’s statutory 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.
7. I have therefore not investigated the substantive matters complained of.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
10. 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 found

Law and guidance

11. 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.
12. Section 26(3) of the Children Act, 1989 provides that all functions of the local authority under Part 3 of the Act may form the subject of a complaint. For example, a complaint may arise as a result of many things relating to statutory social services functions such as:
• an unwelcome or disputed decision;
• concern about the quality or appropriateness of a service;
• delay in decision making or provision of services;
• delivery or non-delivery of services including complaints procedures;
• quantity, frequency, change or cost of a service;
• attitude or behaviour of staff;
• application of eligibility and assessment criteria;
• the impact on a child or young person of the application of a local authority policy; and
• assessment, care management and review.
13. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. In some specific circumstances the Ombudsman may consider early referrals for our consideration of a complaint without a stage three panel taking place.

What happened

19. Ms X’s son (Y) has been diagnosed with conditions which impacts his daily life and ability to receive an education. His complex needs have been set out in an Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan.
20. In 2024 Ms X asked the Council to complete a child in need assessment of Y in line with Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. She said Y was entitled to the assessment as he is considered disabled. She said he should then receive a direct payment to provide some support.
21. In June 2024 the Council allocated a social worker to complete Y’s assessment. However, due to sickness the case was reallocated to a senior family worker.
22. In July 2024 the senior family worker visited Ms X and Y. Ms X said she was told more assessment was needed.
23. However, the Council subsequently decided Y was not eligible for support as his needs was no different to another child of the same age. It told her this was because all children of the same age required constant supervision.
24. In Autumn 2024 Ms X complained to the Council about:
• delay in conducting Y’s child in need assessment;
• its assessment was completed by a family worker with inadequate experience for such an assessment;
• it had told her more assessment was needed, but subsequently wrongly decided no further assessment was required and Y was not entitled to support. She explained Y had more needs than other children his age; and
• its handling and decision were discriminatory as it had not properly considered Y’s needs.
25. The Council offered to discuss the concerns with Ms X to resolve her complaint informally. In October 2024 it acknowledged her complaint, and in November 2024 it provided its complaint response which was through its corporate complaint process. It did not uphold her complaint and asked her to provide evidence Y had more needs than a child of the same age.
26. During the same time, the Council issued an EHC Plan for Y. In Section D of the Plan it said ‘Social Care wrote to the family with regards to a social work assessment as part of the Education, Health and Care plan needs assessment process. The family have not requested an assessment for their child. As a consequence, there is no involvement from Social Care or information available that they are able to provide.’
27. Ms X escalated her complaint with the Council. She also provided additional evidence to show Y’s needs from health professionals, including his EHC Plan which set out his complex needs.
28. Three months later the Council provided its final complaint response, which was again through its corporate complaints process. It agreed Y had significant health and education needs, but its view remained he was not entitled to social care support. It signposted Ms X to the Ombudsman.
29. Ms X asked the ombudsman to consider her complaint.

Analysis and findings

30. Ms X is entitled to request access to the children’s statutory complaints procedure to have her complaint properly and independently investigated. The procedure is a unique process designed to make sure councils hear and respond to the voices of vulnerable children and young people.
31. I found fault with the actions of the Council. The Council failed to formally commence the children’s statutory complaints procedure in August 2024 when Ms X complained to the Council.
32. While its initial offer to attempt to resolve the complaint informally was appropriate, it wrongly responded to her through its corporate complaint process. It is irrelevant whether Ms X’s complaint was made thorough its corporate complaints process as the Council should have identified this. It should have acknowledged this and informed Ms X. This meant the required process was not started as it should have been from November 2024.
33. I found this failure has resulted in further frustration and unnecessary time and trouble for Ms X.

Back to top

Action

34. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Ms X, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Ms X to acknowledge the injustice its failure to use the correct complaints process caused her;

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

2. pay Ms X a symbolic payment of £200 to acknowledge the unnecessary delay and time & trouble she has experienced as a result of the Council fault; and
3. start stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure without further delay. Timescales set out in the statutory guidance ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’ should be adhered to at stage two and should Ms X wish to further escalate her complaint, at stage three. If the investigation takes longer than 25 days at stage two, Ms X should be informed of the reasons why and it should take no longer than 65 days to complete.
2. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3.  
4. review why the Council did not consider Ms X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaint process. It should then ensure appropriate training or reminders are provided to relevant staff to ensure complaints are correctly considered and responded to under the correct complaints process without delay.
3. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault which caused Ms X an injustice. The Council should apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused her. It should also start the correct statutory complaint process and carry out a service improvement recommendation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman