Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a social worker’s assessment in 2020. The complaint is late without good reason, but we could not achieve anything worthwhile by investigating so long after the original events even if we could do so effectively.

The complaint

1. Mr X is unhappy about the contents of a social worker's assessment on 2020 events. He says the social worker falsely accused him of domestic violence while his child was living with him. Mr X says it damaged his reputation and denied him the opportunity to be a responsible father. He is concerned about the effects of the assessment remaining in Council records.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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 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
• any injustice caused by a fault is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating.

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

6. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council considered a police referral in 2020 and assessed whether a child was at risk or whether there was any action it should take. Mr X is unhappy about the content of the Council’s assessment report, which he considers wrong on the facts, and harmful to him from damaging his relationship with his child.
10. Mr X complained to the Council in January 2025 and it told him it would not consider the matter through its complaints procedure because the events happened more than 12 months before he complained about them. The Council’s involvement with Mr X’s family ended in early 2021 and it finally closed its case in early in 2022. It said that due to the passage of time it could not carry out a thorough investigation now.
11. Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman is late. He says he has suffered poor health for some years and had a serious accident in 2023 which prevented him complaining before now. I do not doubt what Mr X says about his reasons for not complaining sooner, but even if he had complained in time it is also the case:
• It is likely information the Council gathered in 2020 differs from Mr X’s account of what happened, and it is not for the Ombudsman to try to decide which is correct. We could not reach a different result by investigating.
• There is no evidence the Council took any action on its assessment, given its involvement with the family ended after only a few months. So we could not say the Council, rather than someone else, is responsible for any effect of what happened on Mr X and his relationship with his child.
• If Mr X considers the information the Council used in its assessment damaged his reputation it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court. It amounts to a claim of defamation, the legal test for which is not one the Ombudsman can use, but is properly for a court of law to apply.
• Mr X wants the Council to remove from its records the information he considers to be wrong. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider this part of the complaint as we have no power to direct the Council to do as Mr X wants.
• Part of Mr X’s concern is whether someone else could use information in the Council’s assessment to secure the right to remain in the UK when they would not do so without it. I cannot see how that, if it happened, would adversely affect Mr X so the point has not caused him significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late and there are no good reasons to accept it for investigation when we cannot achieve what Mr X wants or another worthwhile outcome so long after the original events.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman