Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding procedures. That is because the Council has already accepted fault and apologised.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council administered its child safeguarding procedures. She said there were errors in the initial Child Protection Report; the Council did not provide minutes of the Initial Child Protection Conference in the statutory timeframe, and it did not share the Child Protection Plan before a core group meeting. Miss X said that despite complaining and the Council upholding her complaint, it did not provide her with a copy of the review conference report within the required timeframe and had still failed to update her address.
2. Miss X also said the Council shared confidential information about the family with a concierge at her apartment. She said it refused to consider the complaint at stage three of its procedures.
3. Miss X said the Council’s actions had affected her wellbeing and left her feeling vulnerable and worried. She wants the Council to apologise and compensate her family for the suffering they are going through.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
5. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
8. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council started safeguarding enquiries after it received a safeguarding referral from the Police. Following a strategy meeting, the Council decided to hold an Initial Child Protection Conference; the outcome of that conference was to make Miss X’s children subject to a Child Protection Plan. Miss X made several complaints to the Council about errors in the initial Child Protection report and the subsequent administration of the Child Protection arrangements.
10. In the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint, it apologised for errors in its spelling of names and demographic information in the initial report. It accepted that information on wider family support could have been gathered before the initial Child Protection Conference. It said that information would not have changed its decision to hold an initial Child Protection Conference, however accepted information about family support might have affected the Child Protection Plan.
11. The Council said it did not circulate the conference minutes in the required 20 days. It also apologised to Miss X for not providing her a copy of the Child Protection Plan at the earliest opportunity. It confirmed she had now received a copy.
12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s administration of its Child Protection arrangements. The Council has accepted it was at fault and apologised for that. That remedies any injustice caused. Although I appreciate Miss X’s ongoing frustration that the Council has not updated her address, and that she received the recent review conference report two days before conference, as opposed to the specified five, any injustice caused by this is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
13. The Council said it had spoken to its Officers who visited Miss X’s home. It said they did not disclose personal information to the concierge who works where Miss X lives. We will not investigate this complaint as we could not add to the Council’s investigation.
14. Miss X also complained about the Council’s decision not to consider the complaint at stage three. The Council has a two stage corporate complaints procedure. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of faut in the Council’s decision not to complete a stage three review.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council administered Child Protection proceedings. The Council has already accepted fault and apologised. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman