Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her children’s case since 2020 and the content of its assessments since 2022. The Council has already investigated and responded to Ms X’s concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has apologised and taken action to improve as a result of the faults identified. We could not add to the Council’s responses or achieve anything more. We cannot investigate other elements of Ms X’s complaints because either the law prevents us or another body is better placed to consider them.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to take account of evidence which showed she was a victim of domestic abuse and not also a perpetrator. Ms X is unhappy these labels have been used in a report for the court about care arrangements for her children. She feels the Council has blamed her for trying to protect her children. Ms X is concerned the Council has disclosed her sensitive personal data without seeking consent. She also believes the stage three review panel dismissed her valid concerns. She wants all her complaints upheld, an apology, compensation and for the Council to complete the recommendation made by the stage three review panel.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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))

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We have previously considered Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in progressing her complaint. The Council agreed to resolve this complaint early by offering Ms X a payment to remedy the injustice caused by its delay.
8. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question.
9. The Council concluded its consideration of Ms X’s complaints under stage three of the statutory complaint process in August 2025. The stage three review panel accepted the findings of the stage two Investigating Officer and Independent Person that the Council’s assessments and records for Ms X and her children accurately reflected the situation and did not apportion blame to either parent in respect of domestic abuse as Ms X believed.
10. The stage three review panel decided to change the outcome of Ms X’s complaint about a lack of support from not upheld to partially upheld. The panel considered not enough had been done to manage Ms X’s expectations or the emotional impact of her circumstances at the time.
11. The panel changed the outcome of Ms X’s complaint that core group meeting minutes were not sent to her from inconclusive to upheld. The panel found the Council should have recorded when it had shared minutes with parties as this was good practice.
12. Finally, the panel changed the outcome of Ms X’s complaint about the summary of her mother’s interview (who had witnessed a domestic abuse incident involving Ms X and her ex-husband). The panel decided the outcome should be changed from not upheld to inconclusive. This was because neither the stage two Investigating Officer nor Independent Person could definitively know whether the record held was a full transcript of the interview.
13. The panel noted its concern the Council had shared sensitive health information about Ms X with all parties attending a child protection conference without her consent. The panel accepted concerns about data protection did not typically fall within the scope of the statutory complaint procedure. However it was concerned the Council had not yet considered this issue under its data breach procedure. The panel recommended the Council reported the issue to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) given this complaint was upheld.
14. The panel also noted the length of time that had elapsed since the matters complained of had occurred and that some issues related to the content of reports the Council produced for court proceedings. Such matters would generally fall outside the remit of the statutory complaint process. The law prevents us from considering the content of reports the Council has produced for the courts, so this is not a matter we can investigate further.
15. The Council accepted the findings and recommendations made within the stage two and three complaint reviews for Ms X’s complaint. The Council did not make a referral to the ICO regarding the disclosure of Ms X’s health information. It instead asked its Data Protection Team to consider the issue. While we would normally expect councils to accept and action the recommendations from a stage three review panel, we accept councils are under no statutory obligation to do so. Ms X is still able to refer this matter to the ICO directly as it is better placed than us to consider the alleged data breach and take action if appropriate.
16. Further investigation of Ms X’s complaint by us is unlikely to add to the Council’s responses. The Council’s responses to Ms X under stages two and three of the statutory process were detailed and thorough. Ms X’s disagreement with the conclusions reached via the complaints process is not evidence of fault nor is it a valid reason for us to investigate further.
17. We will not normally investigate a complaint which has already been through all stages of the statutory process. It is not a good use of public money to do so. There is unlikely to be further evidence available that would lead us to a different outcome or conclusions. In this case, the question for us is whether our intervention would add anything to the Council’s investigation and there is nothing to suggest that it would do so.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation by us could not add anything to the Council’s responses. We also cannot investigate other elements of Ms X’s complaints because either the law prevents us (court reports) or another body (Information Commissioner’s Office) is better placed to consider them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman