Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in a family member leaving the family home. We are unlikely to find this was directly caused by Council fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council should not have removed Y from his family, should not have held a Child Protection Conference (CPC) and has not helped to reunite the 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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 Mr X and the Council’s replies to him.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In May 2024 Y, aged 17, alleged they had been harmed by Mr X. After attending hospital Y refused to go home. The Council provided Y with accommodation under s20 Children Act 1989. The Council held a CPC in June 2024. It did not recommend a child protection plan.
6. In reply to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepted that it should have considered the information it had in May and early June 2024 more carefully. If it had, it accepts it would not have held a CPC. It says it has encouraged Y to contact Mr X’s family. It says as Y was 17 at the time of the incident, and had capacity to make their own decisions, it had no power to force any return to the family or impose contact.

Analysis

7. We are unlikely to find Council fault directly caused Y to refuse to return to the family home. Once over 16, a young person can request the Council provide accommodation under s20. The Council does not need parental permission to provide that accommodation nor a Court order.
8. We are unlikely to find Council fault has directly caused Y not to have contact with their family.
9. We are unlikely to be able to add to the Council’s replies to Mr X’s complaint. Given at the time Mr X wanted the Council to help with reuniting the family, a CPC, which is a multi agency meeting could have assisted with that. The direct injustice from having a CPC is not significant enough on its own to justify an investigation or a remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions which has caused Mr X direct injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman