Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about child protection conference arrangements as it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council should not have held a child protection conference (CPC) because she had complained about the Council. And it failed to provide her with reasonable adjustments to attend that meeting. She says the meeting relied on inaccurate information and ignored her comments.

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
• 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 Miss X which includes the Council’s reply to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X complained to the Council about issues relating to its children services support and contact with her. The Council replied at stage one of its complaints’ procedure. Miss X requested the Council escalate her complaint to stage two. Before it replied to her complaint at stage two the Council held a CPC. Miss X says it should not have done so because a reply to her complaint remained outstanding.
6. If, 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 convenes a CPC.
7. The CPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
8. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council suspending a CPC until a complaint response has been sent. Once a Council decides it needs to have a CPC they need to be held as soon as possible.
9. Miss X says the Council failed to provide her with reasonable adjustments to attend the CPC. She says she wanted to do so virtually but the link did not work. She says the CPC should not have gone ahead without her there.
10. The Council replied in detail to this complaint in its reply to Miss X in October 2025. It explained that Miss X had initially said she wanted to attend in person. The Council says it arranged for her transport and for the child’s nursery to care for the child during the CPC. It says the CPC Chair discussed the arrangements with Miss X. The Council says shortly before the CPC Miss X changed her mind and decided to attend virtually. The Council says it set up a link but this did not work. Miss X had provided a written statement of her position on her child’s care. The statement includes that she would not be answering any questions from the CPC.
11. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to go ahead with the CPC despite Miss X not being there. It is likely we would find it made reasonable and proportionate action to meet her needs.
12. Miss X says the CPC relied on inaccurate information and ignored her. The CPC is a multi-agency body and its decisions on whether to recommend a child protection plan are not in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman