Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to assess her son’s needs as a disabled child. There was fault in how the Council failed to investigate Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and inconvenience for which the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to recognise that distress. It also agreed to start an investigation under stage two of the statutory procedure.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council refused to assess her son’s needs as a disabled child. She says this meant her son missed out on support he needed which caused her avoidable inconvenience and stress. She wants the Council to assess her son’s needs and provide him with the right support.

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 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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• the information Mrs X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments on the complaint; and
• relevant law and guidance.
5. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
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

What I found

Complaints about children’s services

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’, 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The Ombudsman would normally expect a council and complainant to follow the full complaints procedure. The guidance sets out the circumstances in which a complaint can be referred to the Ombudsman without completing all three stages. This can only happen when the stage two investigation is robust with all, or all significant complaints upheld. Councils must show they agree to meet most of the complainant’s desired outcomes and have a clear action plan for delivery.

What happened

13. After moving to the Council’s area, Mrs X asked the Council to assess her child’s needs as a disabled child.
14. The Council took some information from Mrs X and consulted with its children’s social care team which supports disabled children. The disabled children’s team decided Mrs X’s child did not meet its criteria for support from that team. Instead, the Council referred Mrs X to its early help service for support.
15. Mrs X was not happy with the Council’s decision and complained about the decision not to offer specialist support.
16. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint under its corporate complaints process, rather than the statutory procedure. It said it had followed the right process when responding to Mrs X’s request. The Council refused Mrs X’s request for a further review of her complaint and directed her to the Ombudsman.

My findings

17. Mrs X’s complaint to the Council was about its application of eligibility or assessment criteria for support from children’s social care. Under the statutory guidance, this is a type of complaint that falls under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.
18. I am satisfied the Council failed to realise Mrs X’s complaint fell under the statutory procedure. Therefore, when Mrs X asked for a stage two review, the Council wrongly decided it could refuse her request. That was fault.
19. As a result, there was a delay in the Council proceeding with the further investigation of Mrs X’s complaint. I am satisfied this caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and inconvenience, since she had to complain to the Ombudsman.
20. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint in late August 2024. Therefore, the delay is now around five months. I am satisfied an apology alone is not a suitable remedy for that delay and that the Council should also make a symbolic payment to Mrs X.

Back to top

Action

21. Within one month of my decision the Council will:
• start its investigation of Mrs X’s complaint under stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure;
• apologise to Mrs X for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the delay in progressing her complaint to stage two of the statutory procedure; and
• pay her £250 to recognise that frustration and inconvenience.
22. 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.
23. Within three months of my final decision, the Council will remind relevant staff of the types of complaints which fall under the statutory children’s complaints procedure and that the Council must follow that procedure when it applies.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. There was fault in how the Council failed to investigate Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress. The Council should apologise, make a payment to Mrs X to recognise that distress, and start an investigation under stage two of the statutory procedure.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman