Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council investigated safeguarding concerns made about him because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. We will not investigate the Council’s response to his Subject Access Request because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about poor communication because the injustice is not significant enough. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s investigation into allegations made against him regarding children. Mr X said the Council:
1. failed to respond to phone calls he made and about its poor communication;
2. withheld information from him about the allegations made;
3. failed to conduct a suitable investigation into the allegations and about the process; and
4. delayed responding to his complaints.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him 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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection, including responses to Subject Access Requests (SAR). 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

Poor communication

7. Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to his phone calls and that an officer spoke to him inappropriately by phone.
8. Mr X was able to speak to the officer within a week of his original phone call. This is not a significant injustice, and so we will not investigate this matter.
9. There is no call recording of this contact between Mr X and the Council. Consequently, an investigation is unlikely to be able to determine, even on a balance of probabilities, what exactly happened. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Subject Access Request and Information Sharing

10. Mr X submitted a Subject Access Request to the Council. The Council refused to share some information with Mr X about the allegations made due to the safeguarding nature of the information.
11. The Information Commissioner is the statutory body created by Parliament to consider data protection and data access disputes. The Information Commissioner is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider if the Council should disclose the information, particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection matters.
12. I have seen no good reasons the Ombudsman should investigate in place of the Information Commissioner, and so we will not.

Investigation Process

13. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.
14. The Council received concerns regarding Mr X. It held a multi-agency meeting to discuss the issues. It determined the concerns were upheld. It wrote to Mr X with the outcome.
15. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision.
16. The Council followed the expected process when considering the allegations against Mr X. Mr X was able to share his views regarding the allegations during a phone call and as part of the complaints process. As part of its complaint response, the Council said it would ensure individuals that have concerns raised about them are provided with a leaflet explaining the process.
17. Consequently, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further, and so we will not investigate.

Complaint handling

18. 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. Therefore, we will not investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman