Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs B’s complaint. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s own findings, or achieve the outcome Mrs B wants. If she wants to pursue her complaint, other bodies are better-placed to consider the data protection and staff conduct issues she has raised.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, complains about the Council’s social work assessment of her granddaughter in 2017, and its refusal to allow her to complain about the assessment.
2. I refer to Mrs B’s daughter as Miss C, and her granddaughter as D.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council;
• it is unlikely further investigation will 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 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 Mrs B and the Council.
6. I wrote to Mrs B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council completed an assessment of D’s welfare in January 2018. The assessment set out the Council’s concerns about the care provided by Miss C (D’s mother). The Council said it would consider child protection procedures if D returned to Miss C’s care.
8. In March 2018 Mrs B and Miss C complained to the Council about the assessment. They said it was unfair and contained many examples of inaccurate and irrelevant information.
9. Later in April, Miss C passed away unexpectedly.
10. In May Mrs B tried to speak to the Council about the complaint. However, the Council refused to discuss this with her, saying Miss C was the complainant, not Mrs B. The Council decided Mrs B did not have the right to make a complaint about how it met its duties to D, as she did not have parental responsibility.
11. This meant Mrs B could not continue her complaint.
12. In December 2018 the Council, after correspondence with Mrs B’s MP, agreed to look at her complaint. It also met her and advised her of her rights under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR gives people the right to see information held about them and, in some circumstances, ask that inaccurate data be rectified.
13. The Council’s complaint investigator found the assessment contained mistakes, and noted that the Council’s data protection officer was working with Mrs B to identify errors which the Council should correct.
14. The Council accepted the investigator’s findings, and confirmed that Mrs B could continue to work with its data protection officer to correct mistakes in the assessment. It apologised for its failures and their impact on Mrs B and Miss C.

Analysis

15. The Ombudsman has the discretion to stop investigating complaints in certain circumstances, including if there is another body better placed to consider a complaint, or if there is nothing we can add to what the Council has already done.
16. In Mrs B’s case the Council has already accepted fault for the quality of its assessment, and for its failure to allow her to pursue her complaint. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything by investigating further.
17. The remedies the Council has offered Mrs B are satisfactory. It has allowed her to discuss changes to the assessment with its data protection officer, and has apologised for its failures.
18. If Mrs B is dissatisfied with the Council’s changes to the assessment, then – as the Council is doing this under the GDPR – she can complain to the ICO, which is better-placed to consider such complaints than the Ombudsman.
19. Mrs B’s main desired outcome is for the Ombudsman to hold a specific social care practitioner to account (for both the assessment and the refusal to consider her complaint). However, we do not investigate individual members of staff, and do not conduct disciplinary investigations. Any procedural fault we find is that of the Council, not of any individual.
20. If Mrs B wants to make a complaint about the alleged misconduct of a social care practitioner, she can approach the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), which is the organisation best-placed to consider such matters.
21. As a result, I will discontinue my investigation. It is unlikely I could add to the Council’s own findings, or achieve the outcome Mrs B wants. If she wants to continue her complaint, the ICO and the HCPC are better-placed to consider the data protection and staff conduct issues respectively.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have discontinued my investigation into Mrs B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman