Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s record of information at a multi-agency meeting. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an Ombudsman investigation and other bodies are better placed to investigate Mr X’s complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a social worker provided false information at a multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) meeting.
2. Additionally, Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint.
3. Mr X said this is causing ongoing emotional harm to his children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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:
• 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))

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. Mr X complained about information a social worker provided during a MAPPA meeting in August 2023. Although this was over 12 months ago, the available information suggests Mr X came into possession of the meeting minutes within the last 12 months. Therefore, I exercised discretion to consider the complaint.
10. Mr X complained the social worker provided false information about him during the MAPPA meeting which impacted on the decisions made during the meeting.
11. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint and said the information provided was believed to be accurate and reflected the social workers interpretation of certain conversations. However, the Council said the records could have been clearer in stating some of the information was professional judgement.
12. The Council offered Mr X the opportunity to make a comment of his opinion alongside where the social worker has recorded their professional judgement in the records. This is an appropriate response to Mr X’s complaint. In any case we could not direct the Council to change its records and therefore could not achieve a different outcome beyond this.
13. Additionally, Mr X’s complaint specifically relates to the conduct of an individual social worker. The Ombudsman does not investigate individual Council officers and in this case, Mr X’s concerns would be better placed with Social Work England.
14. Finally, Mr X’s complaint centres around information recording and data accuracy. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body which upholds information rights and can investigate complaints relating to inaccurate records. Therefore, this part of Mr X’s complaint would be better placed with the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an Ombudsman’s investigation and other bodies are better placed to consider his complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman