Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about children’s services. This is because Mr X has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X raises several concerns about how children’s services recorded and relied on information during a section 47 process. He believes the process was unfair and led to the Council making wrong decisions. Mr X wants the Council to correct its records, apologise to him and review its decisions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. The amount of information provided by Mr X was considerable. In this decision, I have not referred to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
10. Mr X complained the information the Council relied on was wrong. This included police information. When cases involve parallel criminal and child protection investigations, a police investigation will focus on whether there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. Child protection enquiries seek to find out, on the balance of probabilities whether a child is at risk of significant harm.
11. The Council agreed to amend some of its records where the information was inaccurate. It explained its reasons why it would not change other parts. I have considered the evidence and I am satisfied with the approach the Council took. It is unlikely an investigation would add to this response.
12. If the information gathered under section 47 supports concerns and the child may remain at risk of significant harm the social worker will arrange an initial child protection conference (ICPC). The ICPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This might include making the child a ‘child in need’ (CiN) and implementing a safety plan.
13. In this case the Council decided to implement a safety plan. This was discussed with Mr X and other relevant parties and was agreed in August 2025. It required Mr X to sleep away from the family home and his mother was to supervise his contact with his child. The Council delayed in sending the final safety plan to Mr X. Mr X said he was therefore unclear about the exact requirements of the safety plan. However, I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice as I am satisfied Mr X knew the requirements of the safety plan from the meeting in August 2025. I have seen records of the social worker’s home visits later that month. It was clear that supervision by Mr X’s mother was part of that safety plan.
14. Where a child is in need of immediate protection the council, or the police, must act as soon as possible after the referral if removal is required. The council can apply for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO), or the police can issue a Police Protection Order (PPO) which means a police officer can remove the child immediately. The Council decided Mr X breached the safety plan. In November 2025, it agreed a EPO. The Ombudsman cannot investigate any concerns about the decision to make an EPO as this was a decision made by the court.
15. The Council amended the wrong information on its record and re-shared it with relevant people. It took learning points about sharing safety plans in a timely way and about highlighting accepted and disputed information in its records. It explained the changes did not have an impact on its decision making. Mr X has therefore not suffered significant injustice because of any fault by the Council in this part of the complaint. I am satisfied with the actions the Council proposes to take to prevent similar issues in other cases.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman