Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children services team’s approach towards him. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council ignored his claims, showed gender bias against him and shared incorrect information about him with other people.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• 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)
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint and the Council’s replies to him which it provided. Mr X had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In July 2019, Mr X contacted the Council to express his concerns about Ms Y’s care of their child and that he felt Ms Y had inflicted domestic violence on him. He says the Council officer cut short his telephone call and did not call him back. The Council carried out a short assessment of the child’s circumstances in August 2019.
7. In September 2020, Mr X complained to the Council about the way it had dealt with him in 2019. He said that following his contact in 2019, a Council officer had told Ms Y not to allow any contact between him and the child. He says the officer gave Ms Y incorrect information about him.
8. In reply to his complaint, the Council accepted that it should have done more to contact him in August 2019 to get his views. It says it did not address the concern Mr X raised to it that a relative of Ms Y may have access to the records. It says it took internal action. It had identified a conversation where gender bias may have taken place. It says the officer no longer works for the Council. It offered Mr X £600.
9. Mr X says he has lost time with his child. He says he has suffered mentally and emotionally. He says he wants someone held accountable.

Analysis

10. The events Mr X complain of are more than 12 months old. We can only investigate the complaint if there are good reasons to do so. I do not believe there are because:
1. Mr X has provided no reasons why he took time to complain.
2. If Mr X had lost time with his child, the Council could not be directly responsible for this as it did not have parental responsibility for the child.
3. Our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, not to hold a single officer accountable.
4. It is unlikely our investigation would achieve more than the £600 already offered.
5. Parliament set up the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider data protection disputes. Mr X’s allegation the Council should not have shared information about him to other people is more suitable for the ICO to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman