Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a Child Protection Conference Chair. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice, and investigation would not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that, in the course of a Child Protection Conference (CPC), the conference Chair failed to take account of her views and made an unreasonable insinuation about her daughter.

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
• 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s daughter was a Child in Need. Following a CPC she became subject to a Child Protection Plan. Miss X complains about the actions of the CPC Chair. She says the Chair insinuated that there was a likelihood of her daughter making false claims of rape. She says there were no grounds on which to make such a suggestion. She also complains that the Chair did not take account of her views and questioned what she said about her health.
6. Miss X says she wants an apology from the CPC Chair, who she also believes should be retrained or dismissed from her role.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing injustice, and investigation would not lead to the outcome she wants. The Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint set out that the issue of possible false claims of rape was part of a much wider discussion about her daughter’s welfare and it is not for us to say that it was unreasonable to raise it.
8. Neither can we say that the Chair’s actions led directly to a decision which would not otherwise have been made, or that the decision to make the Child Protection Plan was flawed. A CPC is a multi-agency body and the decision it makes is one for the professional judgement of its members. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to substitute an alternative outcome.
9. The Ombudsman considers complaints against councils as corporate bodies, not against individuals, and we cannot ask an individual to take a specific action, such as an apology. Neither we ask that an individual is removed from specific duties. That is a matter for the council concerned. Investigation would not therefore achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice, and investigation would not achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman