Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of the Chairperson of an Initial Child Protection Conference. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the conduct of the Chairperson of an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC). He says they were not impartial and humiliated him and caused him distress.
2. He wants the Council to investigate the Chairperson’s actions and make service improvements to prevent a similar reoccurrence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. At a meeting of the ICPC, the decision was made that Mr X’s child would be the subject of a Child Protection Plan. Mr X is unhappy about the Chairperson of that meeting.
7. Mr X said the Chairperson was not neutral. In his complaint to the Council, he also complained about the decision-making of all parties at the meeting, including a reliance on assumptions and speculation, a disproportionate outcome (Mr X believes the threshold for a Child Protection Plan was not met) and procedural unfairness (such as a comment that Mr X showed a lack of remorse for a past offence).
8. We will not investigate this complaint. We were not at the meeting and so cannot know what happened. But in any case, the decision was made by all parties present. It was for them to decide what weight to give to any comments made by the Chairperson and others at the meeting.
9. Furthermore, it is clear that what Mr X wants is a different decision about the Child Protection Plan and we cannot achieve that. That is because the ICPC is a multi-agency body and we do not have the jurisdiction to investigate its decisions.
10. Mr X is unhappy because the Council refused to investigate his complaints. The Council said it would not investigate because the decision was a multi-agency one. It is clear Mr X’s ultimate goal was for the decision made by the ICPC to be quashed and the Council cannot achieve this. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate. And even if there were, we have now considered Mr X’s decision and made our assessment and so there is no outstanding injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman