Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council responding to a child protection referral, or how it carried out its enquiries. There is not enough evidence of fault it started an investigation and the fault Mr X alleges in how it carried out that investigation, has not caused him a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council unnecessarily started an investigation into child protection concerns. He also said it was wrong to have convened an initial child protection conference (ICPC), before it completed its formal investigations. Mr X said the Council was responsible for bullying his family and its actions were motivated by racism.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. Mr X was unhappy the Council started formal enquiries into a concern for the welfare of one of his children. He said he believed the allegations were one and the same as other allegations, which had already been investigated. He said statements made in the social workers report were unsubstantiated and said his views were not properly taken account of.
7. I have considered the available evidence from Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s complaint responses and the Child and Family Assessment (CAF) report Mr X provided. I have also considered the London Safeguarding Children Procedures.
8. After the Council receives a safeguarding referral, it may decide if the threshold for formal enquiries has been met. If it does, it should also hold a multi-agency strategy meeting. Additionally, the procedures say it should work in partnership with parents and children during formal enquiries.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it is wrong. We consider the process the Council used to make a decision. If it followed the processes, we cannot criticise the decision.
10. On the evidence I have seen on how the Council responded, including how it worked in partnership with other bodies, the length of time it took to make its enquiry and how it involved Mr X and his family, it is unlikely we would find fault in how it responded to concerns.
11. Mr X said the Council was at fault because it held an ICPC before it had completed its formal investigations. The Council explained there were some questions that remained at the ICPC, and there was a brief period where the appointed social worker was unavailable. However, it noted Mr X had been invited to the ICPC and had copies of the report beforehand and could have raised any queries before the ICPC.
12. The fault that Mr X alleges has not caused him a significant injustice. He was able to participate in the process and could have raised concerns about the contents of the CAF assessment before the ICPC.
13. Because of the reasons I have highlighted at paragraphs 10 and 12, I will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault and the fault Mr X alleges about part of the process has not caused him a significant injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman