Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate Mr X’s complaint about children’s services. Mr X also complained that the Council did not fully comply with his subject access request but the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly declined to investigate his stage one complaint regarding his experience with children’s services, on the basis it was late.
2. He said the Council’s decision did not take into account that it had significantly delayed responding to his subject access request.
3. Mr X said the Council’s actions have caused him distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 a council’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)
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
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

What I have and have not investigated

8. Mr X also complained that the Council delayed responding to his subject access request and that some items were still outstanding from his request.
9. I have not investigated these issues, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 5-6 of this decision, which is that the ICO is the body best placed to consider these types of complaint.
10. In this decision I am only investigating whether there was fault in the Council’s decision in October 2023 not to investigate Mr X’s complaint. In doing so, I refer to some earlier events for context only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
12. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
13. I considered our Guidance on Remedies
14. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered all comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Child protection

15. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. In some cases the Council will convene a Child Protection Conference as part of this process.
16. The Child Protection Conference decides what action is needed to safeguard the child. This may include a recommendation that the child should be supported by a Child Protection Plan.

Subject Access Request (SAR)

17. People can ask for copies of the personal information that organisations hold about them. This is called the right of access and is also known as making a subject access request, or a SAR. Organisations usually have one month to respond to a SAR.

Complaints procedure

18. The Council’s complaint procedure says complaints should be made within 12 months of the incident causing the problem, or the complainant realising there is a problem. It states the Council can decide to extend this if circumstances show it would have been difficult for the complaint to have been made earlier, as long as it is still possible to fairly and effectively investigate the facts of the case.

Back to top

What happened

2022 - Subject access request

19. Mr X submitted a subject access request to the Council in May 2022 requesting files from children’s services relating to its involvement with his children.
20. After Mr X did not receive the documents requested for several months, he raised a complaint about this to the ICO. The ICO found the Council to be in breach of the legal timeframe to comply with subject access requests.
21. The Council sent Mr X the subject access request documents a year after his initial request, in May 2023.

2022 - Complaint about children’s services

22. Mr X raised a stage one complaint to the Council in August 2022. He said:
• a social worker failed to consider audio evidence of the mother of his child that showed her being abusive to their child;
• the Council failed to ensure a parenting assessment was carried out with the mother of his child, which was a requirement of a recent Child Protection Conference; and
• the mother of his child was committing child maintenance and benefit fraud.
23. The Council responded in October 2022. It said:
• the records showed that the audio was discussed at the time and action was taken by the social worker;
• regarding the parenting assessment, it said following the closure of child protection proceedings, all parenting assessments had been completed; and
• it signposted him to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) to report any fraud.
24. The Council said if Mr X was unhappy with the response, he could ask for it to be escalated to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. Mr X did not do this.

2023 - Complaint about children’s services

25. Two months after Mr X received his subject access request data in May 2023, he made a new stage one complaint to the Council.
26. He raised multiple complaints about his experience with children’s services in incidents that took place between 2020 and mid-2022. This included police referrals to children’s services which he said the police told him were not responded to. Along with these, Mr X also repeated the complaints made at stage one the year before.
27. Mr X did not refer in this complaint to any new information or evidence which he had only obtained from the delayed subject access request.
28. The Council responded to Mr X and said his complaints were either:
• too late for the Council to consider;
• were repeats of complaints he had made the year before when he had the opportunity to escalate to stage two but did not; or
• were complaints about the Council’s compliance with his subject access request, which he should raise with the ICO.
29. The Council decided not to investigate his complaints further and signposted him to the Ombudsman and the ICO if he was unhappy with the response.

My findings

30. The Council explained to Mr X that the issues raised in his July 2023 stage one complaint were either late, without a good reason for them being so late, or had been raised the year before by Mr X but then he had declined to complete the Council’s complaints process.
31. Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied the Council correctly considered this matter in line with its policy. There were no matters from Mr X’s complaint which he only became aware of through the subject access request. Therefore it was entitled to not start a stage two investigation.
32. The Council properly considered whether to investigate Mr X’s complaint, explained its reasons for not doing so and signposted Mr X to the correct organisations if unhappy with the response. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. I have found no fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman