Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about concerns he has about a discussion session held at a youth club. There is either no evidence of fault or we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint that the Council is withholding information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a discussion session that was held at a youth club that his son attended. He says parents were not asked for their consent, no visitor list or DBS checks were carried out and no one watching children properly. He wants the council to explain how they’ll fix this, so it doesn’t happen again and provide him with information about who attended the session.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council has fully investigated Mr X’s safeguarding concerns. It explained what background checks are made of youth centre staff, how the children were supervised and refereed the matter to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), who considers safeguarding concerns about people who work with children. Further investigation into these points would not add to the Council’s investigation.
7. The Council accepted it should have done more to inform parents of the meeting and has said in future it will write to parents before such meetings take place. This is an appropriate response, so investigation into this point would not lead to a different outcome.
8. Mr X says the issues discussed in the session caused his son particular distress because of his diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). However, it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault in this regard as it says that there is no evidence that it was not made aware of Mr X’s son’s diagnosis so couldn’t adjust how it dealt with him during the session.
9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council would not disclose the names of individual officers involved in the session. Because this matter relates to data protection therefore the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) is better placed to consider the matter.
10. Finally, I will not how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is either no evidence of fault or we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council or achieve a different outcome. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint that the Council is withholding information.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman