Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s children services actions in relation to an Initial Child Protection Conference. It is unlikely we would find any fault which has caused Mrs X a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about an Initial Child Protection Conference’s actions, the need for a child in need plan and the Council’s refusal to escalate her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the input by professionals from other bodies like the Police in multi agency meetings. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint which included the Council’s replies. Mrs X had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Following a child protection assessment, the Council decided to hold an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) for Mrs X’s child, D. The ICPC was held remotely. Mrs X attended. It recommended that the threshold for a child protection plan, that is that there was a risk of significant harm in the future, had not been met. It decided instead to recommend to the Council it have a child in need plan for D, in order to help and support D.
7. Mrs X complained to the Council. She said:
1. The threshold for a child in need plan had not been met because there was no significant harm;
2. The ICPC chair had made their mind up before the ICPC;
3. An observer and school nurse should not have attended and everyone did not have their cameras on;
4. D’s wishes were not complied with;
5. The Council had told her the child in need plan was compulsory; and
6. The Council officers were unsupportive, one smirked during the ICPC and they had not listened to D.
8. The Council replied within its corporate complaints’ procedure. It gave a detailed explanation to each of Mrs X’s points. Mrs X remained unhappy. She asked for the complaint to be moved to stage two of the children act complaints’ procedure. The Council refused. It said the subject of Mrs X’s complaint did not fall within that procedure.
9. Mrs X complained to us. She says the Council had not addressed the points she had made. She thinks it is unfair the complaint does not qualify for the children act complaints’ procedure.

Analysis

10. It is unlikely our investigation would find fault on the substance of Mrs X’s complaint. Significant harm is not the threshold for a child in need plan. The ICPC chair is expected to have read papers before they attend the ICPC. D’s wishes and feelings are only one part of the factors to be taken into account given D’s age.
11. There are other points which may be errors by the Council, but are not so serious to be maladministration. And, on their own, separated from the whole ICPC procedure upset, in any event do not cause Mrs X any significant injustice. If Mrs X left the ICPC believing the child in need plan was compulsory the Council has made it clear since this is not the case. The Council has accepted it should have told Mrs X about the observer, but I cannot see how this can have significantly detrimentally affected Mrs X.
12. We cannot investigate why officers from other bodies, who attended the ICPC did not have their cameras on.
13. Our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, not to hold a single officer accountable for their personal behaviour. If Mrs X has concerns about the professionalism or integrity of an individual social worker, it is reasonable to expect her to report her concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.
14. The Council does not have to consider every children services complaint within the children act complaints procedure. There are regulations which set out which parts of its children services work has to be within that procedure. The regulations do not include within that procedure a child protection investigation nor the ICPC.
15. The Council should have considered Mrs X’s complaint within its normal complaints’ procedure. That has three stages. We would normally expect the Council to have referred Mrs X’s complaint to the second stage of that procedure. We will not investigate this issue further because it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault which has caused Mrs X any significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman