Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about data protection issues as the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed. We will not investigate her complaint about the Council’s reaction to child protection referrals as we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council has failed to take action in response to safeguarding referrals. She says it has breached her data protection privacy and has delayed in replying to her complaint.

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. 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 Ms X and the Council’s replies to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X has made safeguarding referrals to the Council about her child Y’s father’s care of Y. She says her doctor and Y’s school have also reported concerns to the Council’s children services team. Y lives with Ms X but has court ordered contact with their father.
7. Ms X complained to the Council in May 2025. The Council replied at stage one in June 2025 and stage two in November 2025. The Council says part of the delay in replying was because it had difficulty contacting Ms X.
8. The Council in reply to Ms X’s complaint listed the referrals made. It said its children services team had considered the concerns but decided it had no duty to act. It said:

‘Ms X has parental responsibility for Y and are their main carer. This means Ms X can decide to stop contact with their father if Ms X has serious concerns about Y’s welfare. In these circumstances, Y is not considered to be at risk of significant harm.

The situation is complicated by the existing court order that allows contact. If Ms X believes Y is not safe in their father’s care, they advised Ms X to pause contact and seek guidance from the court directly. This is a private matter between two parents and unfortunately does not fall under the remit of children’s social care.

They reassured Ms X that if any further significant concerns arise that require action, they would respond with the utmost urgency, as the welfare of children remains their highest priority. Meanwhile, they strongly encouraged Ms X to pursue the appropriate legal channels to resolve the current concerns.’

Analysis

9. Ms X’s complaint included that she believed private information about her had been disclosed to another family without her consent. Ms X has the right to complain about this data protection complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider this part of her complaint particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.
10. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47). Here the Council decided it did not need to take action. Its decision and explanation is one which is standard in Ms X’s situation and we are unlikely to find fault.
11. Ms X also complained to us about delays in replying to her complaint. 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

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about data protection issues as the ICO is better placed. We will not investigate her complaint about the Council’s response to child protection referrals as we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman