Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to put Mr X’s children on Child in Need plans and a Child Protection Plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision making process, and investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council did not consult all relevant professionals during an initial child protection conference (ICPC). He says the conference’s decision to put his children on Child in Need plans (CiN) and a Child Protection plan is therefore flawed. He says this decision has caused the family stress and he is concerned he and his wife will not be able to work with children in the future. He wants the child protection review conference to be bought forward and held by a new chairperson.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council did not consider all available evidence during the ICPC as it did not consult the medical professionals involved with one of his children, or their school. However, I can see the Council consulted a range of professionals from different organisations, in line with its child protection procedures, and invited the relevant medical professionals and his child’s Special Education Needs Coordinator to contribute their views. It is not within the Council’s control if the professionals are not able to attend the conference in person, and this does not mean their views were not considered.
7. The decision to put child protection plans in place for Mr X’s children was one the Council was entitled to make given the safeguarding concerns and the evidence available to it. The Council made its decision in consideration of the best interests of the children involved, and the Council has acted in line with its safeguarding policy and procedure. There is therefore not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.
8. Mr X requested that the Council bring the review conference forward to review its decision to put his children on CiN and Child Protection Plans. The Council agreed and rescheduled the review conference with a different chairperson, as Mr X had requested.
9. We understand the Council is considering Mr X’s concerns as an appeal against its decisions rather than a complaint about its procedures. It is not a good use of public money to use two different procedures to address the same matters, and we cannot overturn the Council’s decision if properly made, as the evidence shows here. Further investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and an investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman