Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s child and family assessment and section 47 enquiries. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation and another body is better placed to consider his concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s child and family assessment and its enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. He says the Council recorded false allegations about him and that there was an unlawful disclosure of police-held personal data. He also says the Council carried out a one-sided assessment which did not properly consider his concerns about the other parent.
2. Mr X says the assessment is procedurally flawed and that the allegations could affect his employment and parental responsibility.

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 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should involve gathering information from all parties with parental responsibility, and any other relevant parties.
8. The evidence I have seen shows the Council:
• responded to Mr X’s concerns about the assessment, including the allegations about him and the source of those allegations; and
• recorded and considered Mr X’s views as part of the assessment, including his safeguarding concerns about the other parent.
9. The Council told Mr X it would retain the allegations on its records while its investigation was ongoing, but it would also record that he disputes them. I am satisfied it was open for the Council to retain such information as part of its ongoing investigation and there is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating. Further, as the Council’s investigation is ongoing and it has already addressed Mr X’s substantive concerns about the assessment and allegations, then it is unlikely that further investigation by us could achieve a worthwhile outcome at this stage.
10. If Mr X believes the Council has mishandled his personal data or kept inaccurate information, he can complain to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). The ICO is the body responsible for regulating data retention and is better placed to consider those concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating and the ICO is better placed to consider his concerns about data retention.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman