Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children social services and its decision to place her child on a child protection plan. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the actions of the Council’s children social services and its decision to place her child on a child protection plan. She says the Council’s decision was based on wrong and biased information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s decision to place her child on a child protection plan following an initial child protection conference. She considers the Council made its decision using inaccurate information and false accusations.
7. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on councils to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must make enquiries as considered necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
8. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm, the council will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child, which could include a recommendation that the child is supported by a child protection plan.
9. In this case, the Council had concerns about Miss X’s child’s lack of attendance at school and a decision was made to take the case to an ICPC. Evidence shows the Council obtained information from various professionals and, following consideration of the evidence presented, the Council made the decision to place the child on a child protection plan.
10. In response to Miss X’s complaints, the Council confirmed Miss X brought new information to the conference that professionals had not previously seen. However, Miss X was given the opportunity to share her paperwork with the conference and was given time to speak in the conference about her child’s needs, personal circumstances, and why she disagreed with the concerns raised.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we cannot overturn the Council’s decision unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest the Council’s decision making was flawed. The evidence shows the Council followed the correct process and properly considered all the evidence before reaching its decision. We could not find fault with the Council’s decision just because Miss X disagrees with it or considers the information the Council relied on to be incorrect.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman