Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because some matters have been, or could reasonably be, considered in court. We could not add to the Council’s investigation into some matters and others should be raised with the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions of the Council’s children’s services in relation to the care arrangements of his children. Mr X says the Council has assisted his ex-partner by lying and supressing information to the courts. Mr X says the Council is allowing court orders to be breached.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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 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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about information that the Council provided to the courts. This is because the law prevents us from investigating what happened in court. I will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has allowed court orders to be breached. This is because it is reasonable to expect him to raise these matters with the courts. Only the courts can determine if a court order has been breached or not.
9. I will not investigate other matters raised by Mr X because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has explained that its investigation is separate to any investigation by the police and is not reliant on a conviction being sought. The Council has told what information its social workers have access to, and that it cannot share third party information with Mr X.
10. The Council said it spoke with Mr X about the allegations but that there was no record that it had made it clear to him that it was carrying out a Section 47 investigation. I will not investigate this element of Mr X’s complaint because I am not satisfied that this issue alone has caused Mr X a significant enough injustice to warrant our further involvement.
11. If Mr X feels that the Council is withholding information from him that he is entitled to see, or that it is holding inaccurate information about him that should be amended or removed, it is reasonable for him to raise these matters with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO are best placed to consider complaints about data protection matters.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is about matters that have been, or could reasonably be, raised in court. We cannot add to the Council’s investigation into other matters and the ICO is best placed to deal with data protection matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman