London Borough of Hillingdon (24 020 919)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 14 May 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to consider taking child protection action if her partner returned to live in the family home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to say it would consider child protection action if her partner returned to live in the family home after he was convicted for a sexual offence.
  2. Miss X alleged the Council misread documents about her partner’s legal restrictions and reports from an external organisation, which meant the Council made its decisions based on incorrect information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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

  1. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Miss X’s partner moved out of the household after committing a sexual offence. Miss X and her partner have worked with both the Council and an external organisation with a view to the partner returning to live in the household.
  2. The external organisation provided a report to the Council, which said its view was that the partner could return to live in the household.
  3. The documents provided by the Council show it took account of the external organisation’s report and the views of Miss X and her partner. The Council gave reasons for its decision to disagree with the external organisation’s view that the partner could return home and said it would consider taking Child Protection action if he did. The Council is entitled to have a different opinion to the external organisation.
  4. Therefore the evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly so, as paragraph 4 explained, we cannot criticise the decision. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and it is not for us to say whether an offender should return home.
  5. We recognise that Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision, but this does not amount to evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings