e have upheld Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering their complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X.
The complaint
Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council about how safeguarding concerns they had about their child were dealt with.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In April, the Council issued a response to Mr and Mrs X at stage one of the statutory children's complaints procedure. Mr and Mrs X escalated their complaint to stage two, and the Council issued a further stage one response.
If we were to investigate this complaint, it is likely we would find fault. This is because the Council should have escalated Mr and Mrs X’s complaint to stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure when asked to do so.
We therefore asked the Council to escalate the complaint to stage two and apologise to Mr and Mrs X for not doing so sooner. To its credit, the Council agreed.
Final decision
We have upheld this complaint. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing an appropriate remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman