Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of a child and family assessment. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed. And we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy than the Council provided via its complaints’ procedure.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council produced an inaccurate child and family assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Following the report to the Council of an incident involving Y, for whom Mr X is their father, the Council’s children services team held a strategy meeting. It then compiled a child and family assessment. Mr X says this assessment is inaccurate, misleading and defamatory. He complained to the Council.
7. In reply to his complaint, the Council confirmed it had placed on the file:
• Mr X’s edited version of the assessment with his notes and views.
• A statement saying Mr X disputes the assessment’s accuracy.
8. Mr X has the right to ask records are ‘rectified’. This means any factual inaccuracies are corrected. If the Council refuses to do so, he can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.
9. Also, any investigation we could carry out into his complaint is unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already done. Placing notes and the family’s version on the records is the usual remedy we seek for disputed children services’ assessments.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the ICO is better placed, and we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman