Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Child protection archive 2018-2019


Archive has 366 results

  • Norfolk County Council (17 018 099)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: There was no fault with the way the Council reached its decision to share information about a child protection investigation with the hospital where Miss B was giving birth. There was also no fault with the way the Council decided to follow the recommendations of the Child Protection Conferences. However, the Council failed to keep proper records which has hindered this investigation and left Miss B with some uncertainty about what happened and how decisions were reached. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss B and take action to improve its record keeping in future.

  • Surrey County Council (18 005 872)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X says the Council did not communicate with him when it conducted a section 47 enquiry into an allegation of abuse made by one of his children in 2017. There was no fault because the Council did not communicate with Mr X before it closed the section 47 enquiry. There was fault because the Council asked Mr X's former partner to sign a working agreement without fully considering all the circumstances. It should also have consulted the Police when it closed the enquiry. The identified faults did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of the matter by the Ombudsman.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (18 017 637)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 28-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A's complaint that the Council has been at fault in the course of its involvement with her children. This is because the matters about which Miss A complains have been, or can be, considered in court.

  • Derby City Council (18 003 315)

    Statement Upheld Child protection 27-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs F make several complaints about the way the Council dealt with safeguarding issues in relation to their daughter. There was some fault by the Council, for which it has already apologised. This remedies the injustice caused.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (18 017 319)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 27-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council closed the complainant's complaint about a social worker because Mr X did not attend a meeting. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Harrow (18 012 580)

    Statement Not upheld Child protection 26-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council's handling of a safeguarding referral, causing them stress and anxiety. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council.

  • Kent County Council (18 017 094)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 26-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the actions of social workers. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds to investigate it now.

  • West Berkshire Council (18 017 008)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 26-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Y's complaint about the Council's handling of a child protection case involving his daughter. A court is dealing with an application by Mr Y and this will involve considering the welfare of the child.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (18 016 957)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 26-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X's complaint that the Police removed her children from her care. We cannot investigate the Police's action to prevent crime.

  • Southampton City Council (18 017 267)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 26-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council creating and holding inaccurate information. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to decide if the Council breached the Data Protection Act.