Sheffield council failed to meet statutory timescales “at every stage” of dad’s child protection complaint
In early January 2024 a dad, referred to as Mr X in the report, emailed Sheffield City Council with concerns over his ex-partners care for their children.
The local government Ombudsman found the council failed to meet statutory timescales at “every stage” of a dad’s complaint, including taking 160 working days to hold a panel review when it should have taken 20.
In early January 2024 a dad, referred to as Mr X in the report, emailed Sheffield City Council with concerns over his ex-partners care for their children.
The children’s complaint procedure is set out by law, different to other complaints where timescales are at the discretion of the local authority.
Later that month he complained to the council and said it had not looked into his concerns and he was unable to monitor his children’s safety as he did not know where they were living with their mother.
He then escalated his complaint through a three stage process involving an investigation at stage two which concluded in December 2024, and an independent review panel at stage three, held in July 2025.
However, according to Ombudsman, who reached a decision on 22 July 2026, each of these stages was significantly delayed.
The report reads: “The council had 20 working days to respond to Mr X’s stage one complaint, it took 81.
“The council then had up to 65 working days to complete its stage two investigation. Even allowing for the council to define Mr X’s complaint, the council exceeded the timescale.
“Finally, the council took 160 working days to complete the stage three panel, when it should have taken 20.
“The council was at fault for not meeting the timescales set out in the statutory procedure, causing Mr X uncertainty and frustration over the outcome of his complaint.”
However, the Ombudsman said: “Despite the delays in considering Mr X’s complaint, I am satisfied with the council’s investigation and eventual findings.”
Other issues in Mr X’s case included not being involved in meetings or having minutes shared with him and not being offered an opportunity to submit evidence for his stage three complaint.
He was also unhappy with the tone in a text exchange with a social worker.
The Ombudsman’s report reads: “By the end of the statutory procedure the council accepted it had failed to provide Mr X with an opportunity to submit evidence to its stage two investigation.
“While the language used by its social worker was unhelpful and unprofessional, the council accepted this and agreed to learn from it.”
A spokesperson for the council said: “As always, Sheffield City Council accepts a decision made by the Local Government and Social Care ombudsman and has acted as instructed following their decision.
“We are committed to ensuring that the learning identified from this case relating to timescales for responses is embedded within our complaints handling arrangements to reduce the risk of similar timescale failings occurring in future if we fall below the high level of service our residents expect and deserve.
“We hope our full apology to the complainant demonstrates our acceptance of responsibility and our commitment to learning from what happened.”