Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communications with Ms X during its child protection enquiries. The Council has already taken suitable steps after the stage two complaint investigation upheld the complaint. We could not achieve anything more meaningful by investigating the matter. Parts of the complaint are best considered by the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
• recorded incorrect information and refused to correct its records;
• did not provide information about how to challenge its decisions; and
• lacked accountability.
2. Ms X said the matter caused her distress and impacted her health. She said the Council had defamed her character. She wanted the Council to correct the information it held, delete the child protection record, apologise and pay compensation.

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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

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

4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

Our role in investigating complaints

8. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
9. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

Ms X’s complaint

10. Ms X complained to the Council about its actions during a child protection enquiry. Her complaints included the Council not providing her information about how to challenge its decisions and delays in providing her its reports in the lead up to child protection conferences. The stage two complaint investigation upheld the majority of Ms X’s complaint and made recommendations to the Council.
11. The Council has taken actions in line with the recommendations from the stage two investigation report. I asked it to show us it had apologised to Ms X. It had not done so, but has now issued an apology.
12. The stage two investigation did not uphold one element of Ms X’s complaint. This related to her concern a social worker was negligent at the time of her child being injured while at school in the company of their father and the social worker. The stage two report and the Council’s adjudication letter explain why this element of the complaint was not upheld. The matter has been properly and thoroughly analysed and in the absence of fault in the stage two consideration, it is not for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the matter and come to our own view.
13. Despite some delay in the Council apologising to Ms X, it is not proportionate for us to investigate the matter. We could not achieve anything more significant by investigating the matter further. There is not convincing reasoning in this case to recommend the Council pays Ms X a financial remedy as she requests. The faults identified did not change the outcome. It is not fault for the Council to have carried out the child protection process, and this is largely the source of Ms X’s distress. While her distress was likely exacerbated by the faults identified, the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy by apologising.
14. Parts of Ms X’s complaint, and the remedies she says she seeks from complaining to us, are about how the Council treated her data and requests for rectification. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the organisation that considers complaints about how organisations handle people’s information. There is not a good reason for us to consider a complaint about the matter instead.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy to Ms X for the impact of the identified faults.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman