Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about child protection. The principal matters complained of are not separable from matters that were or could reasonably have been raised during court proceedings. Any separable matters relating to data disclosure are ones the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than us to consider.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council breached data protection and gave false information, which caused wrongful findings in the family court and placed her child at risk.
2. She said the Couyncuil wrongly shared data with her ex-partner, both at that time and more recently when dealing with her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
7. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
8. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by the complainant.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. The chronology Mrs X provided contains references to repeated actions in the family court action over several years up to 2021. Her complaint directly states that the Council gave false information that caused wrongful findings there. While Mrs X maintains the Council failed to properly assess the risk her former partner posed to their child, the involvement of the court means we are legally prevented from doing so.
12. Complaints about the disclosure of data, whether historic, or during the Council’s more recent consideration of Mrs X’s complaint, are matters the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed than us to consider. This is because it has powers to impose penalties for data breaches that we lack.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about child protection because the matters she complains of are not separable from matters that were or could reasonably have been raised during court action.
14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about data disclosure, where that is separable from matters subject to court action, as another body would be better placed to consider this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman