Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to a safeguarding referral. This is because the Council has upheld most of the complaint and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more. If the complainant thinks the Council is withholding information he is entitled to, then the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider this issue.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about the Council’s actions after it received a safeguarding referral about him. Mr X says the Council was wrong to act on unverified information. Mr X wants details of who made the referral.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection – including access to information. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X complained to the Council after a social worker contacted him following a safeguarding referral made by a Housing Association. The Housing Association had been contacted by Mr X’s neighbours. Mr X was unhappy the Council had contacted him without verifying the information it received. Mr X asked the Council for details of the referral.
6. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council found all the issues he raised to be ‘justified’ or ‘partially justified’. It said the unverified information it received was not a reasonable reason for social services to have become involved; it should have verified the information received. The referral was closed on the same day the Council first contacted Mr X. Its system only showed the referral was made by a Housing Association but not its name. The Council apologised for any distress.
7. Mr X asked the Council, via a Subject Access Request, for details of the Housing Officer who made the referral. The Council refused his request.

Assessment

8. I understand how upset Mr X is by the issue which led to his complaint. But we will not start an investigation. This is because the Council has provided what I consider to be a proportionate and reasonable response to his complaint. It has accepted it acted with fault and apologised. If we were to investigate it is unlikely we could add anything to the response Mr X has already received.
9. Mr X wants the Council to provide details of the Housing Officer who made the referral. I do not know if the Council holds this information. But the key issue is whether Mr X is entitled to this information. This is not a decision we could take and is one best considered by the ICO. It is the body set up by Parliament to consider such matters and can decide if the Council is withholding information Mr X is entitled to. It can give Mr X the outcome he wants, while the Ombudsman cannot. It is therefore reasonable for Mr X to go to the ICO about this point.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response and the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to decide if the Council is withholding information Mr X is entitled to.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman