Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the financial remedy offered by the Council does not reflect the injustice he experienced. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the financial remedy offered by the Council after it upheld his complaint about child protection. He said the remedy did not reflect the injustice that he had experienced, which was exacerbated by the delays in the Council responding to his complaint. He said the Council’s offer failed to recognise the seriousness of what happened or a breach of data protection.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council in July 2020. He said the Council had failed to provide him a copy of the Child Protection Report it had completed for the Initial Child Protection Conference (ICPC). He said that meant he was not prepared for the meeting and resulted in him feeling ambushed. He said the Council had formed an opinion that he was an aggressor of domestic abuse when he was the victim. He also said the Council had failed to consider cultural differences within the ICPC and its report.
8. The Council considered the complaint through the children’s complaints statutory process. It initially responded to Mr X’s complaint in September 2020. The following month Mr X asked the Council to escalate the complaint to stage two. The Council issued its stage two adjudication letter in March 2022.
9. At stage two the Council accepted there was a significant delay in arranging the stage two investigation and offered a remedy of £300. It also upheld most of Mr X’s complaints and offered £1000 for any injustice caused.
10. The stage two investigation did not uphold a complaint about data protection breach, where Mr X said the Council had posted him the ICPC report, but he did not receive it. The stage two investigation found that complaint as ‘inconclusive’, as there was no evidence that business support posted out the report.
11. Mr X asked for a stage three panel. The Panel upheld a further two complaints about the Council not understanding Mr X’s culture or background and around the Council not providing Mr X the child protection report before the ICPC. It said the Council should have made a greater effort to ensure Mr X received that report. The Panel suggested the Council review the remedy offered given it had upheld all but one of Mr X’s complaints.
12. The Council offered Mr X a further £500 remedy. It also set out extensive service improvements based on his complaint. The overall remedy offered to Mr X was £1800.
13. I have revied the remedy offered by the Council in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
14. We recommend a payment of between £100 and £300 for time and trouble where there has been fault by the Council in dealing with a complaint. Overall, the Council’s delays have extended the time of it dealing with his complaint by almost 13 months. Given, that there were further delays in arranging the stage three Panel after delays were already identified at stage two, my view is between £450 would be an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.
15. The Council has accepted there was fault in how it worked with Mr X in the child protection arrangements, its communication with him and wider recognition of cultural differences and his own experiences of being a victim of domestic abuse.
16. We usually recommend a remedy payment of between £100 and £300 for distress, however where cases are severe and prolonged, a remedy of up to £1000 may be justified. Exceptionally, we may recommend more than this.
17. The Council has offered £1300. My view is this is appropriate, and we would not recommend more. Any distress caused by delays in complaint handling is addressed by the time and trouble payment. And, although Mr X feels a remedy for data protection breach is warranted, based on the evidence, we would not say the Council has breached data protection, but that its communication with Mr X has caused avoidable uncertainty. The Council’s existing remedy is sufficient to address that. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
18. If Mr X wants to progress his complaint of data protection, it is reasonable for him to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because further investigation would not come to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman