Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of a children services’ assessment. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council produced an inaccurate document and its complaints’ process has not addressed this properly.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council’s children services team produced an inaccurate assessment on him. He says he complained about this to the Council. He says the Council’s complaint response does not cover all the mistakes he reported.
6. Mr X has the right to ask records are ‘rectified’. This means any factual mistakes 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 are better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.
7. 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

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the ICO is better placed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman