Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to replace a social worker and compensate the complainant for fault on her part. Our intervention would not add anything significant to the response the Council has made, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council has refused to replace her family’s social worker and compensate her financially for fault on the social worker’s part, as a result of which her family became homeless.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says she and her children were forced to leave a refuge due to the actions of their social worker. She alleges that the social worker shared her confidential information with her former partner in breach of a court order and data protection regulations.
7. Ms X says that, as a result, her family’s safety was jeopardised, and they were made homeless for six days. She believes there is evidence of collusion with her former partner on the part of the social worker and that this calls into question the impartiality of any work she may carry out. Ms X wants the Council to replace its social worker and pay her financial compensation. She complains that it has declined to do so.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because our intervention would not add anything significant to the response she has received from the Council, or lead to a different outcome. It is for the Council to decide how to allocate work to its officers. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the suitability of Ms X’s social worker and cannot express a view on whether she should be replaced.
9. The Council has offered to consider any specific comments Ms X may wish to make about the content of its assessment report and, if appropriate, amend it. This is a reasonable and proportionate response in the circumstances of the case and investigation would not add to it.
10. The Council says it has investigated Ms X’s allegation that it committed a data breach but cannot share the outcome with her. It has correctly advised her that she may bring her concerns to the Office of the Information Commissioner. That is the appropriate recourse and there is no role for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because investigation would not add anything significant to the response she has received, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman