Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council shared incorrect information to the family court. This is mostly because we cannot investigate what happened in court. We also cannot achieve anything more for Mr X and his concerns about the handling of his personal data are better addressed with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council shared a report prepared under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 with the family court which contained incorrect information about his criminal history. He says the Council acknowledged the information was incorrect and should have changed it, but it then shared the same unedited report with a family court solicitor. He believes the Council’s actions affected the outcome of the family court proceedings and led to him missing out on four years of his child’s life.
2. The Council has acknowledged the error and offered him £500. Mr X says it is not enough to remedy the injustice caused to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. We cannot look at the Council’s sharing of a report with the court. This is for the reason set out at Paragraph 5. We also cannot decide whether any flaws in the Council’s report wrongly affected the outcome of the court hearing. This is because the courts consider numerous factors and only they could say whether the disputed information from the report impacted the decision. If Mr X had concerns about the report then it would have been reasonable for him to raise these in court at the time.
9. The evidence I have seen shows the Council acknowledged that it failed to amend and remove certain information in the Section 47 report before sharing this with the family court. It has apologised for this, amended the report and shared the amended version with the court and other relevant parties. It has also offered Mr X a symbolic payment of £500.
10. I am satisfied the Council has taken proportionate action to remedy the injustice its failure to update the report caused. Investigation by us is therefore unlikely to achieve anything more.
11. If Mr X has ongoing concerns about the Council’s handling of his personal data, he may wish to raise these with the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO). The ICO handles complaints about alleged data breaches and mishandling of personal data and is better placed to decide if the Council’s actions complied with the relevant legislation. If the ICO upholds his complaint, he can apply to the courts for an award of damages resulting from the breach.

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could achieve anything more for him. We cannot determine if the report wrongly impacted the outcome of the court case or provide a remedy for this. Mr X’s concerns about the handling of his personal data are more appropriate for the ICO and any claim for damages is a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman