Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about information given or used in Court proceedings. And there are other bodies better placed to consider his professionalism and data protection complaints.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about a children services officer’s actions and the way the Council considered his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X says:
1. a Council children services officer told his ex partner that he had complained to the Council. He says he believes this because of evidence given in Court proceedings. The Council says the officer denies this allegation.
2. the officer also gave CAFCASS incorrect information which it then used in the Court proceedings.
3. the Council has failed to properly consider his complaint. He says the officers have not been interviewed properly and there has been no independence.

Analysis

10. We cannot investigate information given to a Court.
11. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to tell the Court if the officer’s actions could affect its decision.
12. There is little practical prospect that we would be able to investigate the allegation the officer said Mr X had complained.
13. Mr X believes his confidential information has been disclosed without his permission. This is a data protection allegation. Parliament set up the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider data protection disputes. The ICO is better placed than us to consider if the Council has breached the Data Protection Act.
14. Mr X complains overall about the officer’s professionalism. 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.
15. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not and cannot investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot investigate information given to a Court and there are other bodies better placed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman