Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure that his son received adequate care whilst he was placed with foster carers. We find the Council at fault for its delay handling Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to ensure that his son, Y received adequate care whilst placed with foster carers.
2. Mr X says this has caused Y developmental delays, challenging behaviour, emotional scars, and lasting damage, which have affected his school and home life.
3. Mr X wants the Council to acknowledge the mistakes, improve vigilance and accountability for social workers, and have a meeting to discuss future improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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(i), as amended)
6. 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

7. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies (a copy of which can be found on our website).
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory complaint procedure

10. 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.
11. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.

What happened

17. Below is a summary of key events based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.
18. In 2022, during the process of adopting his child, Y, Mr X raised several concerns with the Council. These included issues with how the foster carers were looking after Y, the failure of the foster carers and the Council to report Y’s developmental delays, and a breakdown in the relationship between Mr X and the foster carers.
19. The following month, the Council visited Mr X at his home to discuss his concerns.
20. Two months later, the Council provided a written response, noting Mr X’s concerns and stating that appropriate action had been taken with the foster carers. Mr X responded that he thinks the professionals involved with Y should have picked up his delays. The Council responded, advising that his feedback would be shared with the relevant teams for further response.
21. Five months later, the Council issued a formal stage one response. The Council explained that the foster carers had struggled with Y’s adoption, but work had been undertaken to provide them with training and support to better prepare them for future adoptions. The Council acknowledged that concerns about Y’s milestones were valid and have been addressed at the time by the professionals involved. Following Mr X’s feedback, further training requirements were imposed on the foster carers as a condition of their continued approval to foster.
22. In 2023, seven months after receiving the formal stage one response, Mr X contacted the Council, requesting for the matter to be escalated.
23. The Council appointed an Investigating Officer and Independent Person, initiating a stage two investigation a month later. The investigation took three months to complete and found gaps in the support and supervision provided to the foster carers. However, it concluded there was no evidence that Y received inadequate care and confirmed that the correct procedures for Y’s healthcare assessments were followed. It then took six months for the Council to accept the findings and share the outcome with Mr X. The Council apologised for the delay, explaining it was due to a missing document necessary for the case, and offered £250 to recognise the impact of the delay.
24. Mr X immediately requested a stage three review of the complaint. The review panel met two months later and provided its final response three months after that. The panel partially upheld the complaint about the level of care, citing Mr X’s observations about the level of care Y received but noting that Y appeared to have been looked after by attentive foster carers. The panel maintained that the correct procedure for Y’s healthcare assessment were followed. The Council disagreed with the panel’s partially upheld findings, stating there was no evidence to suggest Y received inadequate care.

My Findings

25. Our role is not to re-investigate the complaint but to determine whether there were flaws in the Stage 2 investigation or Stage 3 review panel that might cast doubt on the findings. The Council followed the proper process, considered the independent investigation and review panel’s findings, and provided a rationale for disagreeing with part of the panel’s conclusion. I found no fault in the Council’s actions or decision-making process.
26. However, there was significant delays at all stages of the complaints process:
• Stage 1 should have been completed within 20 working days but took 157 working days.
• Stage 2 should have been completed within 65 working days but took 224 working days.
• The stage 3 panel should have been held within 30 working days, and adjudication completed within 20 working days. Instead, it took 34 working days for panel to be held and 63 working days to provide the formal response.
27. The delay at all three stages is significant and fault. These delays caused Mr X distress and uncertainty while awaiting outcomes. I acknowledge the steps taken by the Council following Mr X’s initial complaint, working to resolve the concerns at a local level, however the delay providing the formal response is excessive. I also acknowledge the £250 already offered by the Council at stage two for the impact of the delay but I consider an increased remedy covering all three stages to be appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Mr X an additional £150, on top of the previously offered £250, in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay resolving each stage of his complaint. If the £250 has not yet been paid, the total payment to Mr X should amount to £400; and
• using the example of this case, remind relevant officers about the timescales for handling complaints at each stage of the statutory complaints procedure and the importance of adhering to these.

29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. There was fault be the Council. The Council has agreed to the above action as a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman