Kent County Council (25 000 562)

Statement Upheld Child protection 21-Oct-2025

Summary: The Council was largely not at fault for the support it offered to Miss X while her daughter, Y, was subject to a child protection plan. It was also not at fault for considering other family options before arranging a foster placement for Y. However, it was at fault for failing to handle Miss X’s requests for financial support properly. It has agreed to apologise to Miss X, and will take steps to improve its service.

London Borough of Barnet (25 004 711)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Oct-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about alleged harassment and the Council’s handling of her complaints. There is insufficient evidence of fault, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome and the Information Commissioner’ Office is better placed to consider a complaint about rectification of records.

Luton Borough Council (25 007 589)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Oct-2025

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s reports for Family Court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Torbay Council (25 007 701)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Oct-2025

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to recent court proceedings for her child because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Milton Keynes Council (25 009 726)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 21-Oct-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to safeguard a child and breached Miss X’s data protection rights. This is because Miss X is not a suitable representative for the child involved and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider her complaint about a data breach.

Norfolk County Council (24 013 810)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 20-Oct-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to appropriately safeguard Mrs X’s children whilst in foster care. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome for Mrs X.

Bristol City Council (25 007 891)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 20-Oct-2025

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to seek removal of Miss X’s child via the courts, and related matters. The law prevents us investigating what happened in court and the Council’s decision to pursue court action. Peripheral matters are inextricably linked to the court proceedings.

Kingston Upon Hull City Council (25 006 465)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 19-Oct-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s contact with children’s services. The complaint is late, and there are no good reasons why we should consider it. Additionally, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider his complaint about a Subject Access Request.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (25 005 830)

Statement Upheld Child protection 16-Oct-2025

Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to consider her complaints under the statutory procedure for children’s social care. The Council has now agreed to investigate Miss X’s complaint under the statutory procedure. This provides a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Leeds City Council (25 006 327)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 16-Oct-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions following a safeguarding incident involving her family. The Council has already apologised that its initial contact and communication was not in line with best practice. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.