Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to child protection matters. The Council has already investigated and taken action in response. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about several matters relating to his contact with the Council. He complained that:
• It used unverified medical information in its Child and Family (CAF) assessment.
• The assessments it completed were not balanced and it provided them to him too late, meaning he was unprepared.
• There were multiple errors in the assessments.
2. Mr X said this limited how well he could be involved in the process and now has concern that his children were needlessly placed on a child protection (CP) plan.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In London, persons who are affected by decisions made through child protection procedures and conferences, can ask for a review of these decisions. This is a three-stage process, including a final review by a multi-agency review panel.
7. In late July, Mr X’s children were placed on a CP plan at an initial child protection conference (ICPC). Mr X asked for a review, setting out his concerns and in response to this request, the Council brought forward, to an earlier date, a planned CP review, to consider the matter again. At this second CP conference, the chair decided that Mr X’s children should remain on a CP plan.
8. Mr X has now been through all three stages of the child protection review process and has concluded the Council’s corporate complaints procedures. During these processes, the Council has
• Accepted it was late in providing Mr X the CAF assessment for the ICPC, in addition to other meeting notes and apologised for this.
• Provided Mr X an opportunity to add comments to an amended CAF assessment.
• Identified and shared learning among its Children’s Social Care teams.
9. Given the Council’s substantive actions at paragraphs seven and eight, we will not investigate, because it is unlikely further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome for Mr X.
10. Mr X raised some concerns about the timeliness of the London CP review process and that the Council declined to escalate his corporate complaint to stage two. I will not consider those matters, because it is not proportionate to do so where we are not investigating the substantive matters.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman