Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding allegation against the complainant. This is because it would be better addressed by Social Work England and the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss F.
2. Miss F complains:

• a council social worker behaved inappropriately during a call to discuss a safeguarding allegation it had received about her; and
• the Council wrongly notified her employer about the safeguarding allegation.

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 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss F and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council received a safeguarding allegation about Miss F, which concerned a family dispute and the care of elderly relatives.
8. A social worker then called Miss F to discuss the allegation. Miss F says the social worker behaved inappropriately, treating the allegations as established fact and making threats towards her.
9. After the call, the Council contacted Miss F’s employer to inform it of the allegation. This was because Miss F works in a position of trust.
10. In response to a complaint from Miss F, the Council said it had carried out a review of the social worker’s performance, and apologised that Miss F had not received the appropriate level of service. However, the Council said proper consideration had been given to sharing information with Miss F’s employer, and it was satisfied this decision was “justifiable and proportionate”.
11. Miss F then referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

12. Miss F complains the Council’s response to her complaint about the social worker’s conduct was inadequate.
13. The Council has already upheld this element of Miss F’s complaint, explained what action it has taken and provided an apology. Further investigation by the Ombudsman will not achieve more than this, as we do not investigate the actions of individual council officers or make recommendations against them. The proper body to consider complaints about social workers is Social Work England, which can considered individual social workers’ fitness to practise.
14. Miss F also complains about the Council’s decision to inform her employer of the allegations against her. She said the allegations are spurious and that the Council did not follow the local authority designated officer (LADO) process in making the referral to her employer.
15. We have no role in determining the authenticity, or otherwise, of the allegations against Miss F. While the Council has confirmed it did not follow the LADO process in this case, this is not necessarily a requirement of the law; and, more importantly, even if the Council had followed that process, there is no reason to believe this would not still have resulted in a disclosure to Miss F’s employer.
16. The crux of Miss F’s complaint appears to be her general dissatisfaction at the Council’s disclosure of sensitive information about her, rather than the process it followed in doing so. We generally expect complaints about data protection, such as this, to be made to the Information Commissioner's Office. This is the expert body for considering such complaints, and, unlike the Ombudsman, has powers of enforcement.
17. For these reasons, I do not consider it appropriate to continue my investigation of Miss F’s complaint.

Back to top

Decision

18. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman