Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in the course of child protection action. This is because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action relating to his son.

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:

• investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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. Mr X’s son is the subject of child protection action. Mr X is critical of the actions of the Council in the process leading to the decision of the Initial Child Protection Conference ((ICPC) to make a child protection plan. He argues that officers have acted unlawfully, unprofessionally and with prejudice against him.
6. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council which was upheld in part. He believes however that the Council’s should reconsider its child protection action in its entirety.
7. The Ombudsman will not reinvestigate those parts of the complaint which have been upheld. There is nothing to be gained by doing so. The key outstanding area of contention is Mr X’s view that the social worker’s report was flawed in that it failed to reflect his views and the evidence he presented, and that this was material to the outcome of the ICPC.
8. Investigation by the Ombudsman is not warranted because it would not achieve what Mr X wants or lead to a different outcome. We do not ask councils to withdraw or retrospectively change documents such as social worker assessments. The most we would normally ask for that a record of a complainant’s dissenting views are placed on the file. Mr X’s complaint, in which his views are set out, forms part of the record of the case, so our intervention is not required. If Mr X believes the assessment contains false information, his recourse is to pursue his Right to Rectification.
9. Whether or not the issues with the assessment led to the ICPC’s 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 is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Our intervention would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman