Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Chairperson of an Initial Child Protection Conference. Our intervention is unlikely to add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about the conduct of the Chairperson of an Initial Child Protection Conference.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. Miss X’s child is the subject of a Child Protection Plan (CPP). Miss X complains about the conduct of the Chairperson of the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) at which the decision to make a CPP was made.
6. Miss X says the Chairperson had decided that the outcome would be a CPP before the meeting began, and that she unreasonably influenced the other professionals towards that outcome. She also complains that the Chairperson spoke to her in a way she found unacceptable. She argues that the Chairperson’s actions amounted to bullying.
7. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council’s officer considered the record of the ICPC, spoke with the Chairperson and obtained the views of an independent professional who had attended the meeting. The Council concluded that the evidence did not support Miss X’s assertions and her complaint was not upheld.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. The Council took reasonable steps to investigate Miss X’s assertions and its conclusions are proportionate and defensible. There is no prospect that the Ombudsman would make significantly different findings and our intervention is not therefore warranted. Neither can we comment on the outcome of the ICPC, which was a multi-agency decision, not one made by the Council.
9. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss X also asserts that the Council’s social worker has written a report about her family which contains false information about her. If Miss X wants to correct information about her held on the Council’s records, her recourse is to use her legal right to rectification. There is no role for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely our intervention would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman