Buckinghamshire Council (21 001 252)

Statement Upheld Child protection 18-Feb-2022

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to go to Initial Child Protection Conference and place her child on a child protection plan following the sharing of incorrect information. Ms X complains this led to the Council wrongly placing her child on a child protection plan and caused significant distress. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to suitably include Ms X in the ICPC process and for failing to suitably consider and address her concerns about incorrect information. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for not suitably considering the impact on Ms X and Child A. The Council has agreed to provide a financial remedy and service improvements.

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 878)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 18-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action. This is because we cannot achieve what the complainant wants.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 499)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 18-Feb-2022

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in removing the complainant’s daughter from her care and in recommending her adoption. This is because these matters have been decided in Court.

Portsmouth City Council (21 007 226)

Statement Not upheld Child protection 17-Feb-2022

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to provide contact with her child who is in foster care and has failed to respond adequately to concerns about this child. She complains it has also failed to provide sufficient mental health support and to respond to her complaints adequately. The Council is not at fault. Some of Miss X’s complaints are out of our jurisdiction as they have been considered by a court.

Herefordshire Council (21 003 579)

Statement Not upheld Child protection 16-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr B says the Council’s actions during a child protection investigation caused him distress. Mr B says the Council was biased, did not investigate properly, and produced an inaccurate assessment report. We found the Council followed the correct process to investigate the concerns. The Council agreed to amend the report to reflect Mr B’s views and correct any factual mistakes, but he did not receive it. These changes would not affect the outcome of the investigation and are not evidence of fault. The Council has now sent Mr B its amended report.

London Borough of Hackney (20 014 042)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 16-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr B and Ms B’s family. This is because it is unlikely investigation by the Ombudsman would add anything significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out.

Kent County Council (21 015 663)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 16-Feb-2022

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council included in reports about Ms X’s family. These matters are not separable from matters that have been before a court.

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 151)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 15-Feb-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council wrongly shared the complainant’s personal information. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider such complaints. It is also unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add anything to the Council’s response.

Wiltshire Council (21 003 520)

Statement Not upheld Child protection 14-Feb-2022

Summary: Mrs X complains about the actions of the Council’s designated officer for allegations who managed a safeguarding allegation made against her. Mrs X says this matter caused her mental distress and upset. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Kent County Council (20 011 326)

Statement Upheld Child protection 10-Feb-2022

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly assess
Mr B’s allegations that his ex-partner was a risk to their children. However, it has since done an assessment and found the risk to be limited, so it has remedied any injustice. It was also at fault for delaying a proper consideration of Mr B’s discrimination allegations. It has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise his injustice.