Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a child protection conference by the Council as there would be no worthwhile outcome from doing so. The decision the Council reached was one within the range available to it, regardless of not having interviewing Mr X before completing an assessment. And an erroneous comment by a police representative was corrected on the record of the child protection conference. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than us to deal with a complaint about any remaining disputed data or non-disclosure of data.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council’s conduct of a child protection investigation was procedurally flawed. He said social workers failed to interview him when assessing what had happened. He also said the Council’s records were flawed and failed to distinguish between fact and opinion. He said it failed to co-operate with other agencies and to disclose evidence.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council supplied a confidential copy of the record of an initial child protection conference (ICPC) at my request. This accepted Mr X was not interviewed when the assessment of the family was carried out before the ICPC. However, it is clear his views were considered at the ICPC. This also confirmed there was a correction to the record regarding an erroneous comment by a police representative.
6. However, the Council was not responsible for the erroneous comment by the police representative. And the withdrawal of that comment would be a matter for the police. The Council’s correction of its record is sufficient for its part.
7. Moreover, it is also clear that what was alleged by Mr X’s children, as well as what was reported to the ICPC, was sufficient for it to reach the decision it did, which was within the range available to it. That Mr X was not interviewed before that time does not mean the ICPC would otherwise have reached a different view. It was entitled to form its own opinions. That Mr X does not agree is not evidence of fault. That the Council later stepped down the matter to one of Child in Need does not invalidate the earlier decision. This is a common occurrence when an authority can satisfy itself that any risk has been mitigated. Nor does the evidence suggest that any potential failure to share evidence or to co-operate with other agencies might have changed the outcome of the ICPC.
8. Mr X has the right to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if he believes the Council is still in possession of inaccurate data. It is better placed than us to consider this matter as it has powers to require rectification and to impose penalties that we lack.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• There is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr X to warrant our further involvement;
• We could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking; and
• Another agency is better placed than us to consider data matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman