Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to place his children on child protection plans. Mr X’s inability to appeal the Council’s decision is unlikely to have caused him significant injustice that would justify us investigating the matter further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had based child protection plans for his children on false information, motivated by racism and discrimination. He says this has caused considerable distress to him and his wife. He wants the Council to end the child protection plan.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
5. The Council convened an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) in September 2024 following a safeguarding referral about Mr X’s children. The ICPC made a unanimous decision to place Mr X’s children on child protection plans under the categories of risk of physical and emotional abuse.
6. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling in early November 2024. The Council explained Mr X’s appeal against the conduct and outcome of the ICPC was late. It also advised Mr X the police and Crown Prosecution Service’s decision not to proceed did not mean the Council’s involvement should also end. The Council explained it could not overturn the ICPC decision under its complaint process but would reassess its position at the Review Child Protection Conference (RCPC). The Council encouraged Mr X to engage in the process and allow it to conduct statutory visits on his children.
7. The RCPC has since unanimously decided Mr X’s children should remain on child protection plans. It is unlikely an appeal against the original decision of ICPC would have been successful. Mr X’s inability to appeal the ICPC decision is therefore unlikely to have caused him significant injustice that would justify us investigating the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman