Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about decisions by a child protection conference and its complaints’ outcome. We are unlikely to reach a significantly different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X disagrees with a child protection conference decision and says the complaints panel’s decision on his complaint about this was flawed.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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 which includes the final reply to him.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council arranged a child protection conference (CPC) in February 2025. It recommended the Council have a child protection plan. The Council arranged a review CPC in May 2025. It recommended the Council keep the child protection plan.
6. Mr X complained. He felt the CPCs had not considered their views and were unfair. He says the child protection plan should not be continued just because professionals had not completed the work they intended with the children.
7. The local children safeguarding board considered his complaint at all three stages of its procedure. At the final stage an independent review panel decided the complaint in August 2025. That review panel consisted of three multi agency professionals who had no prior knowledge of the case. They agreed with the CPC’s decisions. The complaint review panel decision included that another review CPC was due to be held which would be chaired by a new person. Our investigation is unlikely to achieve more.
8. Mr X seeks compensation for having a child protection plan. The plan is set up to help the children and meet their needs. Mr X says it has been an unnecessary burden on his family. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the CPC unless there was good reason not to. Here it is unlikely we would say the Council was wrong to follow the CPCs recommendation.
9. As the complaint’s process had an independent part to it, we will not reinvestigate the same issues unless the process is significantly flawed. Mr X says it is. The reasons he gives though are disagreements with how the review panel considered and approached the evidence and decided the case. We are unlikely to say these are a flaw in the process.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different outcome than the complaint’s procedure has already achieved.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman