The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the accuracy of Child Protection Conference minutes and comments made at the conference by a Council social worker. There is nothing significant we could achieve, and there is another body better placed.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, says a Council children services social worker lied to a Child Protection Conference. She says the minutes do not reflect what happened and the Council refused to use an independent complaints process.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: 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) 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) We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X says the Council’s social worker did not tell the truth at a Child Protection Conference (CPC) in September 2021. She says the minutes do not accurately reflect the meeting. She says the Council replied to her complaint within its corporate complaints scheme and not the Children Act statutory complaints scheme which has independent officer oversight.
The CPC decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.
After the Initial CPC, there will be one or more Review CPCs to consider progress on action taken to safeguard the child and whether the Child Protection Plan should be maintained, amended, or discontinued.
Review CPCs should be held within three months of the initial conference, and after that at maximum intervals of six months.
The CPC is a multi-agency body and is not in itself a body in the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. We cannot investigate its decisions.
The CPC 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 responsibility of the Council. We would generally consider it right for a council to follow the recommendations of the CPC unless there was good reason not to.
At the CPC Ms X had the chance to challenge the information the social worker provided. She will have a chance to do so again shortly at the Review CPC.
The Council replied in detail to Ms X’s allegations the minutes were not accurate. It is unlikely our investigation could add to that explanation. Also, Ms X has the right to request records are ‘rectified’. This means any factual inaccuracies are corrected. If the Council refuses to do so, she can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO is better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.
Complaints about child protection issues, which this one is, are not required to be considered within the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. We would not find fault in the Council’s decision to use the corporate complaints’ procedure.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could significantly add to the Council’s reply. We cannot investigate the CPC’s decision, and the ICO is better placed to consider if the records are inaccurate.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman