Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed giving her access to her care files. She also complained the Council did not follow correct safeguarding processes and delayed removing her from her family’s care when she was experiencing abuse. She complained this matter caused her significant emotional harm and distress. There was fault when the Council significantly delayed providing Miss X with her care files. The Council has agreed to provide Miss X with an apology and £150 in recognition of the time and trouble she was put to by its actions. The Council should also remind its staff of the importance of responding to subject access requests within the required timescales. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint point regarding the Council’s safeguarding procedures as I do not consider it likely I can provide a worthwhile outcome for Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council:
1. failed to provide her social care files for several years after she requested them; and
2. failed to properly safeguard her by delaying her removal her from her family home when she was at risk of significant harm.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated complaint point a). I have not investigated complaint point b) for reasons I will explain at paragraph 28.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included a brief chronological summary of the contact shared between it and Miss X.
9. I consulted the Ombudsman’s Guidance on jurisdiction.
10. I wrote to the Council and Miss X and consider any responses I receive before I write the final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law

11. The Children Act 1989 (the Act) says the child’s needs and welfare are paramount and the needs and wishes of the child should be put first. This is so the child receives the support they need before a problem escalates.
12. Under the law, individuals may make a request to see personal data that an organisation has about them. It is commonly referred to as a Subject Access Request (SAR).
13. Where an adult makes a request for their information, the Council needs to check the person making the request has the right to do so and that the request is in the person’s best interests.

Background

14. The Council removed Miss X from her parent’s care when she was in her early teens after determining she was at significant risk of harm.

What happened

15. In August 2017, shortly after turning 18 Miss X asked the Council to provide her with a copy of her care files. The Council told her it would take time to read through the files and it would not be able to provide the information within the usual 40 days. The Council said it would aim to provide the files by December 2017.
16. Internally, the Council discussed whether some of the documents could be harmful for Miss X to receive and considered whether Miss X’s support worker should talk to Miss X about the files before the Council sent them.
17. The Council wrote to Miss X in November 2017 and told her it would update her in January 2018 as to when she would receive the files.
18. In June 2019, Miss X wrote to the Council to chase for an update as she had still not received her files. The Council said it had reviewed all the files and would aim to provide them by the end of that month.
19. Miss X wrote to the Council again in September 2019 as she had still not received the files. The Council told Miss X it was still reviewing them. Internally the Council was holding discussions with Miss X’s support worker around how to ensure Miss X was able to cope emotionally when she received them.
20. The Council sent Miss X the files in October 2019.
21. On 26 February 2021 Miss X complained to the Council. Miss X said the Council delayed providing her care files and removing her from her parents’ care despite knowing she was suffering abuse. Miss X said this caused her distress and significantly deteriorated her mental and physical state.
22. The Council wrote to Miss X on 8 June 2021 and told her it would not consider her complaint due to the time that had passed since the events she was complaining about had occurred. The Council said it was unlikely to gain sufficient access to information or staff from the time and therefore it could not investigate.
23. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the Council’s refusal to investigate.

Findings

24. Miss X asked for her care files soon after turning 18. The Council told Miss X on several occasions that it was sending her the files but did not provide them for two years. The Council also failed to provide Miss X with regular updates, causing her to chase the Council several times. The evidence shows the files were lengthy and the Council took time to review and consider the emotional impact releasing the files would have on Miss X. However, whilst I would expect the Council to ensure Miss X was properly prepared to receive potentially sensitive or upsetting information, I consider the Council’s delay excessive. This is fault. Miss X was likely inconvenienced and frustrated by the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council should provide Miss X with a written apology and £150 in acknowledgement of the avoidable time and trouble Miss X was put to by the Council’s actions.
26. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council should provide evidence showing it has reminded staff of the importance of keeping to reasonable timescales when processing subject access requests.

Back to top

Final decision

27. The Council was at fault for significantly delaying providing Miss X with her care files. I have made recommendations to address this. I intend to complete the investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

28. I have not investigated complaint point b) because given the subject matter and length of time that has passed it is unlikely, I will be able to provide Miss X with the remedy she seeks. It is open to her to pursue this matter through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman