Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council decision to make his children subject to child protection plans. The decision was within the range open to the Council given the evidence available. Investigation by us would be unlikely to establish the Council would have reached a different decision but for the errors made.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to follow the correct process in reaching a decision that his children should be subject to child protection plans.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 record of the initial child protection conference (ICPC) decision and Mr X’s detailed rebuttal of the report for the ICPC together show the nature of the concerns raised. The Council received a referral alleging physical abuse. Mr X’s rebuttal states that one child told him what the child had said to a social worker when interviewed. It also states that he spoke with one of his children about what the child would say. While Mr X takes the view that what the child said was not correct, and that his conversation with another child was not coaching, the Council could take a different view. That Mr X saw the report for the ICPC late, and says he did not have sufficient opportunity to present his views, does not mean the ICPC would or should have reached another view. I note the Council apologised for one comment it accepts was not correct. However, that had no bearing on its decision or the reason for the referral. Were we to investigate, given what Mr X has stated one of his children said, and his own statement about checking with a child what the child would say, it is unlikely we would find the ICPC’s decision was a matter of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council leading to injustice to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman