Summary: We upheld this complaint about how the Council’s review panel handled Mr X’s complaint about the lack of support provided to his family during the Child in Need (CIN) process. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a financial remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Stage 3 review panel, commissioned by the Council under the statutory children’s complaint procedure, failed to consider the emotional impact of the Council’s actions on him and his family during the CIN process.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him and his family distress. Mr X would like an apology and financial compensation for the distress caused.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In February 2024, the Stage 3 review panel reviewed Mr X’s complaints about the CIN process. The Council had already upheld most of his complaints at Stage 2 of the statutory children’s complaints procedure but had not provided a suitable remedy for the injustice experienced by Mr X and his family. The Stage 3 review panel also upheld most of Mr X’s complaints but again did not provide a suitable remedy.
8. If we investigated this complaint, we would likely find fault causing Mr X injustice because the Stage 2 investigation and Stage 3 review panel upheld most of his complaints and the Council accepted the panel’s findings. We acknowledge the Council has provided an apology and carried out service improvement recommendations; however, it is likely we would consider this insufficient for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

9. Within four weeks of the final decision the Council agreed to pay Mr X a symbolic payment of £500 in recognition of the likely uncertainty and distress caused by the following upheld points of complaint:
• Lack of support following safeguarding referrals.
• Delays allocating a social worker (August 2023 and January 2024).
• Poor communication between the Council and the family.
• Failure to ensure Mr X and his children’s views were included in the Child and Family Assessment.
• Acknowledgement that language in reports that appeared to blame the family’s mental health for difficulties.
• The failure to organise CIN meetings during the family’s involvement with children’s services.
10. The Council’s agreement to carry out these actions would remove the need for a formal investigation. It would not be proportionate for us to investigate any remaining injustice from the alleged fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman