Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council made adult safeguarding enquiries. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. It is reasonable for the complainant to refer their concerns about data protection to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council responded to safeguarding concerns about a family member, Y. She said as the concerns were unfounded, they should be removed from their case records.
2. Mrs X said that during its enquiries the Council shared Y’s personal information. She said it would not respond to a subject access request. She said the Council’s actions had made Y vulnerable. She wants an apology from the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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
• 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), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. After receiving the safeguarding referral, the Council checked Y’s adult social care records, their health records and contacted the referrer and Mrs X. It decided Y was not at risk, and the concerns were inaccurate. It wrote to the referrer confirming that.
8. In its complaint response, the Council acknowledged the referrer had not notified Mrs X about the referral. It said it had raised this with the referring agency. It apologised to Mrs X for any upset it caused by contacting her unexpectedly.
9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with the safeguarding referral. The Council was not responsible for the referring agencies decision not to notify Mrs X or Y about its referral. The Council assessed the information that was available to it, contacted Mrs X, and updated the referrer with the outcome of its enquiries. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council acted to justify our involvement. In addition, we cannot instruct the Council to remove the referral from Y’s case records. Therefore, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.
10. We will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council shared personal information about Y. It is reasonable for Mrs X to refer her concerns about data protection and how the Council handled her subject access request to the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is best placed to dealt with complaints about personal information.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement, and complaints about data protection are best dealt with by the Information commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman