Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement in the complainants family. This is because most of the complaint is about matters that have been subject to court proceedings, which places it outside of our jurisdiction. Complaints about inaccurate information and the Council’s refusal to amend records are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner. There is no evidence of fault with how the Council has responded to other issues raised by the complainant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. His complains that the Council provided inaccurate information to the courts, refused to amend inaccurate information about him, failed to properly respond to his requests for information and unnecessarily placed his children on Child Protection Plans.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, 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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. The complainant commented on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council provided inaccurate information to the courts. This is because we are unable to investigate matters that have been subject to court proceedings. This includes the contents of reports provided to the courts or anything else the Council says or discloses during proceedings.
9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly respond to his Subject Access Request, and that it has refused to amend inaccurate information about him. This is because he has raised these matters with the Information Commissioner, who is better placed to consider complaints about date protection matters.
10. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the decision to place his children on Child Protection Plans. This decision was made during a multi-agency Child Protection Conference, and there is a separate appeals and complaints process about such decisions. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to have asked for an appeal at the time.
11. In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council clarified who carried out its assessments, explained what visits took place and when, told Mr X who attended a strategy meeting, why the initial meeting was delayed and explained why it would not investigate matters that have been subject to court proceedings. Having carefully considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response I see no evidence of fault in how it responded.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because most of the issues raised have been considered in court, some matters are for the Information Commissioner, and I have seen no fault in how the Council responded to other issues raised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman