Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about information included in a safeguarding report. This is because any injustice Miss X may have suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement. We are also unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council included inaccurate information in a safeguarding report presented at an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC). She says the police confirmed the allegations were untrue, but the Council nevertheless shared the incorrect information with safeguarding professionals. Miss X says it undermined her credibility, created a risk the conference made decisions based on incorrect information, and caused her significant stress and anxiety. Miss X wants the Council to apologise, withdraw and correct the inaccurate information and issue an amended report to all recipients. She also wants a review why it did not properly consider her evidence and complaint and provide assurance it will not rely on inaccurate information in future assessment.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The safeguarding report described an incident consistent with the information the police provided. Although the wording in the report lacked clarity, I have not seen sufficient evidence the report led to a materially wrong outcome at the ICPC. Therefore, any injustice Miss X may have suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
6. The Council recognised Miss X’s concerns and agreed to add a case note to the file to explain the incident more clearly. Therefore, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Miss X.
7. Miss X also complained about how the Council handled her complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. We are also unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman