Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s management of a section 47 investigation. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s management of a section 47 investigation. She said she has been caused stress and anxiety due to the Council’s actions.

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 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))
 

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X has raised several complaints about the Council’s decision to start a section 47 enquiry after receiving information from the local police that concerns her and her child. Among other things she said it disregarded a Claire’s Law disclosure and has not explained its actions. Miss X also complained about the Council’s decision to reduce contact between her and her child and its failure to respond to her subject access request.
8. The Council explained information shared by the police led it to conclude that a section 47 enquiries were necessary to address the risk of harm to Miss X’s child. The Council provided information that supported its reasoning. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
9. Miss X remains unhappy with the Council’s actions. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision made by the Council if it has followed the correct process. The Council has provided information which shows it has responded to the information supplied by the police indicating there is a potential for harm to Miss X’s child with a proportionate investigation. This is what we would expect it to do. An investigation would therefore be unlikely to result in finding fault with the Council’s actions.
10. Miss X is unhappy with the current contact arrangements which she says are in breach of a court order. The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to make a finding on complaints relating to legal proceedings. It is open to Miss X to refer this part of her complaint to the courts.
11. Miss X complains the Council has delayed and not responded to her subject access request. Complaints regarding information requests are a matter for the information commissioner’s office (ICO). It would be reasonable for her to refer this part of the complaint to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman