Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to follow a child protection conference recommendation or not to investigate her complaint within the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure. We are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council should not have had a child protection plan for her child, Y, and that it should not have refused to investigate her complaint.

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. (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 which included the Council’s reply to her.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says the Council held a child protection conference (CPC) which recommended the Council held a child protection plan (CPP) for her child Y. She says this was on the basis of fabricated or induced illness (FII). She says the CPC relied solely on UK medical advice when she had presented it with medical evidence from another country. She complained to the Council.
6. It replied in August 2025. It said it would not investigate her complaint because the CPP had now ended. Any appeal of that CPC recommendation would be pointless.
7. Ms X says she has also complained against the health professionals who advised the CPC.

Analysis

8. When a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, section 47 of the Children Act 1989, imposes a duty on the Council to ‘make such enquiries as it considers necessary’. It has to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
9. When, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the Council has to hold a CPC.
10. The CPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation the child should be supported by a CPP.
11. The CPC is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
12. The CPC plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a CPP or to discontinue a Plan, is the Council’s responsibility. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the CPC’s recommendations unless there was good reason not to.
13. In this case we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to call a CPC and in its decision to follow the CPC’s recommendation. We would not expect the Council’s social workers to disagree with medical opinion on medical matters.
14. Ms X says the Council should have investigated her complaint within the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure. As Ms X’s complaint is about child protection matters it does not qualify for that procedure.
15. Ms X says we should at look why the Council has refused to investigate her complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to follow a CPC recommendation. And we are unlikely to find fault in its decision not to investigate her complaint within the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman