Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision not to accommodate Y. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider data protection complaints, and we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council ending child protection plans.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council’s children services team failed to act adequately to support her family.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X has three children with added needs. She says she asked the Council in March 2025 to accommodate the eldest child, Y. She says it refused. She says the Council held a child protection conference (CPC) which recommended the Council hold child protection plans for all three children. She says the Council agreed in May 2025 to accommodate Y following an incident in which Ms X says Y assaulted her.
6. The Council replied to Ms X’s complaint. It explained that it had assessed the family and decided Y’s needs would be better met with their family and not in care.
7. Ms X says the Council has since closed its cases and the children are no longer on child protection plans.

Analysis

8. Ms X’s complaint includes that she believes the Council’s assessments are inaccurate and that it has shared information about her to other people without her consent.
9. Ms X has the right to ask records are ‘rectified’. This means any factual errors are corrected. If the Council refuses to do so, she can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because of complex exemptions for child protection case files.
10. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to follow data protection legislation. This includes disclosing information to third parties without consent.
11. The Council does not have to accommodate a child if a parent asks it to do so. The Council here has considered the case and reached a professional decision. Our investigation is unlikely to find fault in that decision.
12. Ms X is not happy with the CPC’s recommendation.
13. Following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, councils hold multi-agency strategy meetings. It can decide the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm. If it does then a council convenes a Child Protection Conference.
14. The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
15. After the Initial Child Protection Conference, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences. These consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
16. Review Child Protection Conferences should be held within three months of the initial conference, and thereafter at maximum intervals of six months.
17. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
18. The Child Protection Conference plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the responsibility of the council. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the Child Protection Conference unless there was good reason not to.
19. The Council has since ended those child protection plans. We are unlikely to achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision not to accommodate Y. The ICO is better placed to consider data protection complaints. And we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council ending the child protection plans.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman