Summary: We will not investigate part of Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection action relating to her when she was a child in the 1990s because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. We will not investigate her complaint about data handling because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the matter.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to:
1. take safeguarding action to protect her when she was a child in the 1990s; and
2. store and document relevant information relating to her care as a child in the 1990s and 2000s.
2. Miss X said the matter caused her distress, frustration, and uncertainty.

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 or data processing. 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

7. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman following a Subject Access Request (SAR) where she discovered events she describes as failures in the child protection process.

Child protection action when Miss X was a child

8. We will not investigate this complaint. The issues complained about took place approximately 30 years ago.
9. When deciding whether to investigate a complaint about historic matters, the Ombudsman considers whether there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision due to the passage of time. I considered the following in this case:
1. the evidence available is unlikely to be sufficient to enable a reasonable investigation to take place. In older cases we are less likely to be able to gather sufficient evidence to enable us to reach a sound judgement;
2. the context of professional expectations, standards, the law and statutory guidance has changed significantly over time. We are unlikely to be able to reach a fair conclusion on whether there was fault; and
3. it is unlikely we could achieve a meaningful remedy considering the passage of time due to the difficulty in establishing causality in line with the role of the Ombudsman, and the changes in the circumstances of the parties involved.
10. Because we are unlikely to achieve a sound, fair, or meaningful decision due to the above factors I conclude the tests in our Assessment Code are not met, and therefore we will not investigate this complaint.

Information storage and retention

11. Miss X complained her records were not adequately retained and noted gaps in the information recorded following her Subject Access Request.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better suited to consider complaints about data processing, storage, and retention. Parliament created the ICO to consider complaints of this nature. I have seen no good reasons the Ombudsman should investigate this matter in place of the ICO, and therefore we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate part of Miss X’s complaint because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met. We will not investigate the remainder because another body is better placed to consider the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman