Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the conduct of a child protection enquiry. The decisions the Council reached were within the range open to it, and the errors it made are unlikely to have affected the outcome. Investigation by us of the Council’s actions would be unlikely to lead to a different or worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said there was fault in the way the Council carried out child protection work. She said the Council did not work with her to resolve matters and took lies as facts. She said the Council did not take evidence from all the agencies involved and did not provide her with the information she should have done. She said the Council did not respond to her appeal against its decision. She said her partner has had to live away from the family home and that this has been expensive.

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:

• 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. It is not disputed that the Council received three safeguarding referrals that concerned Mrs X’s partner and a child. One was from a school, and the Council did not disclose the identity of the other two. I have seen evidence that shows what was alleged. Councils with child protection functions that receive such referrals or allegations must consider them. Where the person alleged to have acted in a way that may have harmed a child or created a risk of harm to child has contact with a child or children, the Council must consider what action is needed to minimise the potential risk of harm. One of the considerations is whether another adult living at the home is likely to be a protective factor. Where the adult accepts the possibility that the person may pose a risk to a child, it is more likely they will be deemed to be a protective factor. An adult who does not accept a person may pose a risk to a child is unlikely to be regarded in the same way. In such circumstances, councils are likely to require the person and the child or children to live at separate addresses. It is usual to ask the person to move out rather than the children, though the children may be removed if the person declines to leave.
6. While Mrs X takes the view that what was reported was lies, it is clear that her children did not agree. In such circumstances, the Council could take the view she was not a protective factor. It was also entitled to take the view that it was more reasonable for Mrs X’s partner to leave than for the child living at home to do so. That there was a good reason why the partner would find it difficult to live away from home does not mean the Council should not have asked for that.
7. The Council accepted its communication with Mrs X was not good, and that she was not properly informed of the difference between Child Protection and a Child in Need. However, it is unlikely that investigation by us of procedural faults would lead to a different or worthwhile outcome. This is because Mrs X is firm in her belief that the allegations were lies, despite the views of her children. That alone would provide a reason for the Council to require the separation of her partner from the child at home. And we could not say the Council would have found the allegations to be false if its actions had been different.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to lead to a different or worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman