Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council's decision to hold a child protection conference. It is unlikely we would find fault which directly caused the conference to be held.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council decided to hold a child protection conference based on inaccurate information.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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 Mrs X and Council’s replies to her.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council held a child protection conference (CPC) in 2021 for D, for whom Mrs X is their mother. Mrs X says the Council decided to call this CPC because it believed Mrs X had obstructed professionals’ access to D. She says the Council said it believed this because it said CAHMS had told it so. She has provided evidence to support this assertion.
6. The Council held a review CPC following the initial CPC, following which D’s child protection plan was changed to a child in need plan. Mrs X says the CPC process caused her and her family additional stress.
7. Mrs X requested her documents from the Council. From this she discovered the link to CAHMS and complained to it. She says CAHMS in 2023 and early 2024, confirmed it had no record of telling the Council Mrs X had obstructed contact to D. She complained to the Council.
8. The Council said that “ the comments valid or otherwise would not have changed the progression of the case”. D had multiple complex issues at the time. It said it would hold Mrs X’s complaint on the case records. It referred Mrs X to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if she believed the Council held inaccurate information.

Analysis

9. It seems Mrs X accepts that D had challenges around meeting new adults around the time of the initial CPC. The Council’s, and Mrs X’s description of this, the words used, are different. It is not clear why the Council referred to information from CAHMS.
10. A Council only has to have ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ a child is at risk of suffering significant harm to call a CPC. Given the background circumstances it is unlikely we are going to be able to conclude the only reason the Council called a CPC was because of inaccurate information, and that it would not have done so if that information had not been around.
11. The Council has agreed to place Mrs X’s complaint on the records. If Mrs X believes the Council’s records are still inaccurate she can request they are ‘rectified’. Should the Council not correct the records as Mrs X would like, she has a right to ask the ICO to consider her complaint about that data protection issue. The ICO is better placed to consider this.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could find Council fault directly caused a CPC to be held. And the ICO is better placed to consider any continuing data protection issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman