Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to progress his complaint to stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure and respond to his later complaint about housing. We found the Council to be at fault because it took nine months to acknowledge his later complaint, despite Mr X sending several reminders. This caused Mr X significant frustration and distress. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. We did not find fault with the Council’s initial decision to not proceed with the statutory procedure.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to progress his complaint to stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure and ignore his later complaint about unsuitable housing.
2. He says this caused distress and frustration, because the Council has failed to provide suitable accommodation for his son.

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

How I considered this complaint

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

The statutory children’s complaints procedure

The three-stage process

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’ (the Guidance), 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.

What happened

10. Mr X has a disabled son (Y) who lives with his mother. In 2024, the Council carried out a child protection enquiry that led to an assessment about Y’s welfare.
11. In December 2024, Mr X complained to the Council about the Council’s handling of this matter. I shall refer to this as “the First Complaint”). Specifically, he complained about the Council’s failure to involve him in the assessment process, restricting his access to Y, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
12. His complaint dealt with under the stage three process described above. His complaint was not upheld at stage one.
13. Mr X requested his complaint be escalated to stage two. He said he wanted to add several matters to his complaint including:

• the failure of the children’s services department to intervene in Y’s unsuitable housing situation; and
• discrimination and violation of Y’s human rights.

14. The Council refused to do so because Mr X raised new matters that were not included in his original complaint. It said the main issue was the standard of accommodation provided to Y and his mother, rather that the intervention (or lack of) by the children’s services team. A complaint should be made about the housing team instead.
15. 15 days later, Mr X raised a further complaint about similar issues. I shall refer to this as “the Second Complaint”. His email was sent to the Council’s generic, “contact us” email address. His complaint was acknowledged and he was told it has been referred onto the housing team. He received a further, similar email, two weeks later.
16. Mr X sent a further three reminder emails over the next four months. Whilst he received one acknowledgement from the housing team, he did not receive a substantive response.
17. Dissatisfied with the Council’s initial refusal to progress his complaint to stage two and failure to respond to his later correspondence, Mr X brought is complaint to the Ombudsman.
18. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it did not receive his later complaint until December 2025. At this point he was invited to complete a complaint form.

Analysis

The First Complaint

19. It is not within the scope of this investigation to consider the suitability of Y’s accommodation.
20. The issue for me consider is whether the Council was at fault in refusing to progress Mr X’s complaint to stage 2 of the statutory complaint’s procedure.  The Guidance expects complainants to be able to pursue their complaint through all three stages if they remain dissatisfied with a council’s response. However, there may be circumstances where this will not apply, as was the case here.
21. Based on the evidence I have seen, I am satisfied Mr X’s raised new matters in his stage two request that justified being the subject of a fresh complaint.
22. I agree with the Council’s assessment that the suitability of Y’s current accommodation was the main reason Mr X wanted his complaint progressed further. It was not how he had been treated during the assessment process. This was confirmed by Mr X’s complaint to, and correspondence with, the Ombudsman. Progression to stage two of the statutory complaint’s procedure can be limited to matters addressed during stage two.
23. The Council properly advised Mr X that his complaint about Y’s unsuitable housing should be dealt with as a separate complaint against its housing department. This was because the decision about Y’s accommodation was made by the housing department, not children’s services. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make, and not one the Ombudsman would interfere with.
24. I therefore find no fault with the Council’s decision to invite a new complaint from Mr X about Y’s unsuitable accommodation, rather than add it to his initial complaint. It is up to Mr X whether he decides to pursue this matter further.

The Second Complaint

25. It is my assessment that there was fault by the Council in its handling of the Second Complaint. The evidence shows Mr X’s complaint was received by the Council in February 2025. I have seen emails over several months from three different officers, including one from the housing team, that show his complaint was in the system. The Council has failed to provide any explanation as to why it was not dealt with at the correct time. Nor has it confirmed whether it has now provided Mr X with a response.
26. I am satisfied this significant delay caused Mr X significant distress and frustration. This injustice requires a remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Mr X.
2. Pay Mr X £200. This is a symbolic payment to acknowledge Mr X’s distress and frustration.
3. If it has not already done so, the Council should provide Mr X with a response to his Second Complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have fault with the Council’s failure to respond to Mr X’s Second Complaint. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr X. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman