Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action and in its response to the complainant’s subsequent complaint. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council has been at fault in the course of child protection action relating to her family and in failing to properly consider her complaint.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s family was the subject of a Section 47 child protection enquiry, as a result of which the child protection conference made the decision to make a child protection plan. Ms X complains about the conduct and outcome of the Section 47 enquiry and the child protection conference. She further complains that data protection legislation has been breached.
7. Ms X made a complaint to the Council which was upheld in part. She believes however that the Council failed to properly address the matters she raised.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because our intervention would not lead to a different outcome. Whether or not the child protection conference should have obtained further information before reaching a decision is a matter for its professional judgement. Even if we could say that it was at fault, whether that fault led to the decision to make a child protection plan is not something the Ombudsman could determine. Neither is it for us to take a view on whether a child protection plan remains appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Only a further child protection conference can make that decision.
9. Whether or not the Council’s complaint response dealt with every concern Ms X raised to her satisfaction is not a matter for the Ombudsman. The responses at Stages 1 and 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure are indicative of a proper level of consideration and the outcomes appear reasonable and proportionate. That being the case, there are insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.
10. If Ms X believes the Council breached data protection in the course of its engagement with her family, she may bring this to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman