Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children services actions. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s replies, there is not enough direct injustice caused by Council fault, and there are other bodies better placed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about children services officers’ actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

Background events

8. Following an incident in September 2021, the police made a child safeguarding referral to the Council’s children services team. The Council carried out a home visit and held a strategy meeting. It decided to call an Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC) held in November 2021. The ICPC recommended the Council have a child protection plan to help safeguard the child.
9. Mr X’s complaint includes the report’s accuracy given to the child protection conference, the officers’ behaviour and the provision of reports to him. He believes if the reports had been drafted differently the child protection conference would not have recommended a child protection plan. He says he was denied the opportunity to properly consider the report in advance of the ICPC. He says his employer, the NHS, should also not have been informed.

Council’s duties

10. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. The Council must decide whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
11. It has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be started where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
12. If, following a referral and an assessment by a social worker, a multi-agency strategy meeting decides the concerns are substantiated and the child is likely to suffer significant harm, the council convenes a Child Protection Conference.
13. The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include recommending a child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
14. After the ICPC, there will be one or more Review Child Protection Conferences to consider progress, and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
15. Review Child Protection Conferences should be held within three months of the initial conference, and thereafter at maximum intervals of six months.
16. The Child Protection Conference is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
17. The Child Protection Conference plays an advisory role. But the final decision, for example whether to place a child on a Child Protection Plan or to discontinue a Plan, is the Council’s responsibility. We would generally consider it appropriate for a council to follow the recommendations of the Child Protection Conference unless there was good reason not to.

Analysis

18. The Council’s reply to Mr X, explains the wording used in the report. Some of Mr X’s comments on the reports are about his interpretation of the words used. We are unlikely to be able to add to the Council’s reply on this.
19. Mr X says the Council did not send him a copy of the social worker’s report until after the ICPC. However, the Council’s social worker went through their report personally with Mr X before the ICPC. Mr X had the opportunity to explain his view at the conference. In addition, Mr X has the opportunity to do so at the review conference. Considering all these factors, whilst it might have been best practice to provide a copy of the report before the meeting, there is no significant enough injustice to Mr X by the late written report provision to justify an investigation.
20. Mr X says there was not enough evidence to justify a section 47 investigation. Given the circumstances, and that the ICPC recommended a child protection plan, it is unlikely we would criticise the Council’s professional decision to carry out a section 47 investigation.
21. Mr X believes the Council should not have shared information with his employer. The Council believes it had a duty to do so. Data sharing forms part of the data protection rules. Parliament set up the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider data protection disputes. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes disclosing information in error. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to contact the ICO about his date protection complaints.
22. Our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, not to hold a single officer accountable. If Mr X has concerns about the professionalism or integrity of an individual social worker, it is reasonable to expect him to report his concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would add to the Council’s reply, there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation and there are other bodies better placed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman