Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a child protection conference. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a child protection conference. She says the Council failed to include her child’s voice and sought to reinstate contact with an abusive relative. She complained to the Council about this and is dissatisfied with how it handled her complaint.
2. Ms X says the matter has caused her and her family harm. She wants an apology, financial compensation and for the Council to rectify all records and errors.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

(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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Statutory Guidance for Working Together to Safeguard Children (the Statutory Guidance).

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Statutory Guidance, complaints about child protection conferences are exempt from the statutory children’s complaints procedure. However, councils may deal with such complaints through its own internal complaints procedure. Here, the Council explained to Ms X that it could not address her complaint through the statutory complaints procedure and would instead review it through its own process. It was entitled to do this and there is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating.
7. The evidence I have seen shows the Council addressed the complaint in line with its internal complaints procedure. This included a panel of at least two representatives from safeguarding children partnership agencies who were not involved in the case.
8. The complaint response shows the Council:
• considered Ms X’s concerns and whether correct procedures were followed;
• accepted it should have shared reports with Ms X before the conference, but decided this did not place her at a significant disadvantage because the reports had not been shared with either parent and were read at the conference;
• acknowledged that one of Ms X’s children should have been invited to the conference, but noted the child’s views were included in the social worker’s report;
• explained that the conference considered whether contact with another relative should be re-established, but accepted the children’s views against this. It also explained that any decision about contact arrangements could only be enforced by the court; and
• did not uphold the remaining parts of her complaint and explained why. The Council also said it would share the learnings identified with its social work team.
9. The Council properly considered the complaint, reviewed relevant evidence and set out reasons for its decision. It also addressed any shortcomings and accepted errors. Further investigation by us is unlikely to add to the Council’s consideration of the matter or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman