Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children services’ actions. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed for his information complaints. And it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s child protection actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council has failed to take safeguarding action and has not provided information he wants.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says in April 2022 the Council assessed safeguarding his child Y. Mr X had regular contact with Y who lived with their mother. Mr X became concerned that Y may be meeting a person who threatened Y’s safety, Z. Following a Council assessment, Y’s mother agreed to ‘written agreement’ that Y would not have contact with Z. The Council told Mr X it would “monitor the situation and undertake unannounced visits and take further action or assessment if this was considered necessary".
7. Mr X says he has had no information about whether any such checks have taken place. He says that he is not aware that Y’s mother has breached the written agreement. He suspects she has. Mr X says:
• The Council has not provided him with information about Z.
• There should be a better safeguarding plan for Y.
• He wants all Y’s records.
• He wants to be involved in all meetings about Y.
• The Council should be conducting unannounced visits and he believes they have not done so.
8. The Council in reply to Mr X’s complaint said:
• It could not provide him with information about third parties.
• His request for information he was entitled to would be processed in line with data protection procedures.
• Mr X had been invited to a meeting in September 2022 but had declined the invitation.
• It had assessed the situation and decided the written agreement was the best course of action.

Analysis

9. Mr X has the right to request records. If the Council refuses to release the information, he can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes information disclosure disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider Mr X’s complaint about this, particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.
10. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome. It is unlikely our investigation could find fault in the Council’s decision to adopt a ‘written agreement’ as a way of preventing contact between Y and Z. There is no evidence this has not worked.
11. The Council only said it would undertake unannounced visits where necessary. We are unlikely to find fault if it has not done so when there is no evidence the agreement has been breached.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the ICO is better placed to consider his data protection complaints. It is unlikely we would find fault in the decision to adopt a written agreement and the action taken since.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman