Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council carried out Child Protection proceedings for his child, placed restrictions on how he should contact the Council, and considered his request for reasonable adjustments for his disability. He said this caused him avoidable distress and affected the outcome of Child Protection proceedings. We have ended our investigation. Since Mr X complained to us, the court granted an interim care order so his child could be temporarily taken into care and his child has since been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Therefore, there is nothing further we could achieve. For the remaining parts of Mr X’s complaint, our view is further investigation will not result in a finding of fault, or a different or worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council carried out Child Protection proceedings for his child, D, in 2023 and 2024. He says the Council:
1. failed to follow the correct process for its Child Protection proceedings, and properly explain the process followed;
2. placed unreasonable restrictions on his contact with the Council which prevented him from engaging in the Child Protection proceedings. This meant he could not ask questions about the process, provide his views, or raise concerns;
3. inappropriately shared information about his family and the Child Protection proceedings internally within the Council, without his consent; and
4. discriminated against him as someone with a disability and failed to provide reasonable adjustments he asked for in how it communicated with him.
2. Mr X says these failings by the Council caused him avoidable distress and placed his family at a disadvantage in the Child Protection proceedings. Mr X wants the Council to provide reasonable adjustments to how it communicates with him, answer his questions about the Child Protection process, and replace the Child Protection Conference Chair for his case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
6. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
7. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating;
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained;
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome;
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

8. The Information Commissioner is the body set up by the government to respond to complaints and concerns about data protection and access to personal information. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Mr X, documentation and comments from the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction.
10. Mr X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection and Section 47 enquiries

11. Where a council has reasonable cause to suspect a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. It should start such enquiries where there are concerns about abuse or neglect. These enquiries are often called ‘Section 47 enquiries’. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
12. If, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a Child Protection Conference. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
13. The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include:
• making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan; or
• a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
14. After the Initial Child Protection Conference, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
15. The Child Protection Conference plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the Child Protection Conference unless there was good reason not to.

The Mental Health Act 1983

16. Under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA), when someone has a mental disorder and is putting their safety or someone else’s at risk they can be detained in hospital against their wishes. This is sometimes known as ‘being sectioned’.

The Equality Act and reasonable adjustments

17. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
18. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation.
19. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
20. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.

What happened

21. Mr X lived with his child D. In early 2023, the Council started section 47 enquiries about the family. Following this it decided to place D on a Child Protection Plan.
22. I have summarised some key events about Mr X’s complaint below. This is not intended to provide a detailed description of everything that happened.
23. In August 2023, Mr X sent various emails with queries to the Child Protection Conference Chair (the CP Chair) for his case. The CP Chair shared this information with the Council’s complaints team. The complaints team contacted Mr X to arrange a meeting with him and the CP Chair. Mr X then complained because he:
• wanted the CP Chair to respond to his questions directly instead of receiving a response via the complaints procedure; and
• did not think the CP Chair should have shared this information with complaints staff outside the Child Protection proceedings.
24. In September 2023, The Council responded to Mr X’s queries and concerns at Stage 1 of its corporate complaints procedure. This included a response to all the key queries and concerns he had raised with Children’s Services and the CP Chair, across multiple emails. The Council told Mr X it considered he had sent “overlong or repeat” emails which was interfering with the ability of its officers to carry out their day-to-day work effectively. It therefore asked him not to send any further repeat correspondence to the CP Chair. It said it would forward further correspondence from Mr X to a named Single Point of Contact (SPOC) in its complaints team. The SPOC would then decide if he was raising any new points which needed consideration and response. The Council directed Mr X to escalate his complaint to Stage 2 if he remained dissatisfied.
25. In November 2023, following receipt of repeated blank emails from Mr X with no text, the Council resent him its Stage 1 complaint response with the information about how to escalate this to Stage 2. Mr X responded to complain, which the Council treated as an escalation of his complaint to Stage 2. Mr X:
• said he had not received the Stage 1 response when the Council previously sent this in September. He also did not agree with the Council’s decision to respond to his questions for the CP Chair via its complaints procedure;
• repeated his concerns the CP Chair had shared information with complaints staff outside the Child Protection proceedings;
• said the Council should not restrict his contact with the CP Chair because its own policy was that contact should be via the CP Chair. He said this disadvantaged him in being able to engage with the Child Protection process;
• said he had told the Council that due to his disability his preferred method of communication was email. He also said his disability meant he needed to explore issues repeatedly, in detail. Mr X’s view was the Council’s decision not to respond to repeated emails about the same issues, was discriminatory because it had failed to communicate with him in the way he needed it to; and
• asked the Council to replace the Child Protection Conference Chair for his case.
26. In December 2023, the Council responded to Mr X at Stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It said it had nothing to add to the Stage 1 response and directed Mr X to the Ombudsman.
27. Over the next couple of months, Child Protection proceedings continued. Mr X repeatedly sent the same question about the Child Protection proceedings to the Council, which it sent to his Single Point of Contact (SPOC). The Council had already answered this question in its Stage 1 complaint response.
28. In March 2024, Mr X’s SPOC wrote to him again. This said:
• the Council’s view was it had already provided a proportionate response to all Mr X’s queries about the Child Protection process, in its September 2023 Stage 1 complaint response;
• the complaints procedure could not be used to challenge the Council’s professional judgment about the level of risk faced by a child;
• the Council did not agree with Mr X’s position that it was inappropriate for it to share information internally about his case;
• it had communicated with him by email in line with his reasonable adjustment request;
• the contact restrictions the Council placed on Mr X were appropriate due to the high level of correspondence received from him; and
• as previously explained, Mr X could now take his complaint to the Ombudsman.
29. Over the next month, Mr X continued to contact the CP Chair and other Council staff about the same issues he had raised previously. The Council continued to ask Mr X to direct his correspondence to his SPOC.
30. At the end of March 2024, Mr X came to the Ombudsman.
31. In April 2024, Mr X told the Council he would not engage with Children’s Services or adhere to any Child Protection or Child in Need Plan about D, until the Council addressed his complaints.
32. Also in April 2024, the Council’s information management team wrote to Mr X in response to repeated contact from him about information sharing and data protection. It told him the Council had acted correctly, but if he had further concerns about information sharing and data protection, to contact the SPOC or the Information Commissioner.
33. Mr X continued to raise queries and complain to the Council about the Child Protection proceedings.
34. In September 2024, the Council got an interim care order for D via the courts. This meant the Council could take D into care temporarily. D was then sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The court has agreed D should remain in hospital for the time being. They are too unwell to leave the hospital or for decisions to be made about where they will live in the longer term.

My findings

Complaint 1a – Child Protection process

35. Mr X raised various queries about the Child Protection process. He wants the Council to answer these queries. The Council already provided a satisfactory response to Mr X’s queries. There is nothing we could add to this explanation by investigating the complaint further.
36. Mr X also wanted the Council to replace the CP Chair. The Ombudsman cannot direct the Council about how it should use its resources. We could not tell the Council it must replace the CP Chair. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council followed its Child Protection process, so I will not investigate this issue further.
37. The court granted an interim care order so D could be taken into care. D has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Therefore, there is nothing more we could achieve. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. The courts have held that this limit applies to any matters closely linked to what happens in court. This includes the content, accuracy, and preparation of Council reports used in the court proceedings.

Complaint 1b – contact restrictions

38. Mr X does not agree with the contact restrictions placed on him by the Council. The Council properly considered and explained its decision to provide Mr X with a SPOC. It is entitled to place these restrictions. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, so I will not investigate this issue further.
39. Mr X’s view is the requirement to communicate via a SPOC prevented him from engaging with the Child Protection process. I do not consider this to be the case as those involved were aware of his views. Therefore, I will not investigate this issue further because it did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. The court has granted an interim care order so D could be taken into care. The court would have had to ensure Mr X was involved in that decision. D has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Therefore, it would not be an efficient use of the Ombudsman’s limited resources to investigate how the Council communicated with Mr X as part of the earlier Child Protection process.

Complaint 1c – information sharing and data protection

40. We will not normally investigate a complaint about data protection, as we expect people to refer these matters to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner is the body set up by the government to respond to complaints and concerns about data protection and access to personal information so I will not investigate this issue further.

Complaint 1d – discrimination and reasonable adjustments

41. Mr X says the Council failed to provide reasonable adjustments he asked for. The Council communicated with him by email, at his request. There is insufficient evidence that we would find fault if we were to investigate further how the Council considered and responded to Mr X’s requests for reasonable adjustments.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have ended my investigation. Since Mr X complained to us, the court granted an interim care order so D could be taken into care and D has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act, so there is nothing further we could achieve. For the remaining parts of his complaint, our view is further investigation will not result in a finding of fault, or a different or worthwhile outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman