Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the involvement of the Council’s children’s social services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault for most of the complaint, and because Mr X can complain to the Information Commissioner about his right to rectification request.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s children’s services including:
1. failing to provide support to him and his children;
2. not listening to his or his children’s views; and
3. creating inaccurate reports.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him uncertainty and distress.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

Background

7. Mr X has children who are subject to a child protection plan. The children’s mother chose to move to a different area with the children.

Moving area

8. Mr X complained the Council failed to listen to the children who he said did not want to move, failed to intervene to stop the move, and failed to consider the impact of the move on his children’s education.
9. Although Mr X is frustrated, it was not the decision or actions of the Council which resulted in the children’s circumstances. It was the actions of the children’s mother, who exercised her parental responsibility, to move area. The Council did not have the authority to intervene.
10. Consequently, because the Council had no power to stop the children’s mother from moving and the subsequent impact this had, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement, and we will not investigate.

Returning to Mr X’s care

11. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide support when the children returned to live with him and placed undue pressure on him and his wider family to support the children.
12. The Council told Mr X in its complaint response that it tried to contact him via phone and email to provide additional support via the child protection process but had been unsuccessful. Mr X felt the Council did not listen to his views.
13. Although Mr X is frustrated by the circumstances there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It is open to Mr X to engage in the child protection process, attend core group meetings and child protection reviews, and obtain the support he desires.
14. Because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council tried to support Mr X, we will not investigate these complaints.

Inaccurate reports

15. 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 is better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.
16. I have seen no good reason the Ombudsman should consider this matter in place of the ICO; therefore, we will not investigate this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate most of Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the remainder because the ICO is better suited.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman