Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child protection matters. This is because we cannot add to the investigation carried out by the Council and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains about how the Council dealt with child protection matters relating to her child. Dr X wants an apology and reassurance that the issues raised in her complaint will not happen again.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(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.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council investigated Dr X’s complaint and upheld some of the points she raised. It accepted that a taxi booked for Dr X did not arrive, that it had delayed providing Dr X with information she requested, and that information had been recorded in the incorrect section of an assessment. It apologised, reminded staff how to correctly complete assessments and agreed to send the information Dr X requested.
8. I will not investigate the elements of Dr X’s complaint that the Council upheld. This is because doing so would not lead to a different outcome. The Council’s apology and reminder to staff wer reasonable and proportionate. If Dr X feels the Council is withholding information she has requested, it would be reasonable for her to raise the matter with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
9. Dr X also complained about the contents of an assessment, which she said contained discriminatory and derogatory comments and included inaccurate information from a GP. The Council checked the case notes on file which matched the information in the assessment provided by the GP. The Council agreed to add a note on the assessment outlining what Dr X disagreed with.
10. I will not investigate Dr X’s complaint about the contents of the assessment. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. We cannot instruct the Council to rewrite the assessment, so its agreement to add a note to it is reasonable and proportionate. We were not privy to the conversations between the social worker and GP so could not reach a robust conclusion about exactly what was said.
11. Dr X complained that the Council delayed informing her that it opened a child protection case and made calls and sent emails to her when she was unwell. In response to these elements of her complaint, the Council said that it made decision to delay informing her of its involvement because it concluded doing so could hinder her progress. It said contact was made with Dr X because the Council needed to gain up to date information and obtain her views before completing its assessment.
12. I will not investigate these elements of Dr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s approach, and it has fully justified why it took the actions it did. Whilst Dr X may strongly disagree with the Council’s decision making, we cannot question the merits of decisions that were made without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint because we cannot add to the investigation carried out by the Council and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman