Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged failures the Council in dealing with Miss X when undertaking child protection work. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. The Information Commissioner is also better placed than us to consider alleged data protection issues.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to make adjustments for her disability in taking child protection action. She said it wrongly found her mental health was the cause of problems in the family home with her child, but that its failure to treat her properly and provide support led to the problems. She also complained of data protection issues.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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. The Council arranged an initial child protection conference (ICPC) in 2024 after an incident in the home that was reported by the police. The ICPC decided Miss’s child was at risk of emotional harm due to having witnessed what happened. It also took the view Miss X’s mental health posed a risk of harm. It made the subject to a child protection plan.
6. Most of the matters Miss X has complained of directly relate to the decision of the ICPC. She takes the view her mental health was not the cause of the issues that led to child protection action, but that the Council caused them by failing to make reasonable adjustments for her conditions. In correspondence with the Council, she said she had been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and a borderline personality disorder. She also said she was being assessed for autistic spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. She said her daughter should also have been referred to the disabled children’s service, and that the child protection plan was unfit for purpose.
7. The Council does not share Miss X’s views. It maintains her mental health is a key issue in safeguarding her child, and that the decisions of the ICPC were correct. It does not consider the child protection plan was unfit for purpose. In short, it stood by its judgements.
8. I have read the record of the ICPC. It is clear the decision reached was a carefully considered one. To find fault with the Council’s actions would require me to choose between two views of the causes of problems in the family home, as well as Miss X’s mental health. It would also require an assessment of their impact in creating the child protection issue that arose, and the fitness of the resulting child protection plan. Only an appropriate medical professional could do that.
9. The only matters that are clearly separable from the above are data protection matters. The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to deal with those matters as they have powers to determine data breaches and to impose penalties. We lack such powers.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:

• There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant this;
• Another body is better placed than us to consider data protection matters; and
• There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman