Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaints about inaccuracies in a social work report because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter. We will not investigate X’s complaints about the decision to place their children on a child protection plan or the conduct of a social worker and conference chair because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any meaningful outcome. We will not investigate the remainder because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

The complaint

1. X complains the Council:
1. created an inaccurate report for a child protection conference;
2. provided inaccurate information about their family to third parties which led to their children being placed on a child protection plan;
3. failed to include their children’s views as part of the child protection process;
4. did not address their concerns about the conduct of the chair of the conference or the social worker;
5. delayed responding to their complaint.
2. X said the matter caused them 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, data processing, or right to rectification. 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

Inaccurate report and failure to correct information

7. X complained about the accuracy of a social worker’s report. In its complaint response the Council explained it had created a table which explored and documented X’s disagreements. For most of the issues X raised the Council decided the issues amounted to a disagreement with professional opinion. For others, it found the disputed issues to be minor and corrected its records.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. If X believes the social worker’s report remains inaccurate, they could take the matter to the Information Commissioner.
9. Parliament created the Information Commissioner to consider these types of complaints. The Information Commissioner is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider if the Council complied with its duties under data protection legislation to correct X’s personal information or change its records, particularly because there are complex exemptions for child safeguarding matters.

Inaccurate information provided during child protection conference

10. X complained the inaccuracies in the social worker’s report negatively influenced the professionals at the child protection conference to vote in favour of the child protection plan.
11. Although professionals present at a child protection conference provide a view about whether children should be placed on a child protection plan, the ultimate decision to do so rests with the Council.
12. On balance, it is likely X was able to express their views during the child protection meeting and subsequent reviews. The children remained on a child protection plan.
13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the decision to place the children on a child protection plan was unlikely to be based solely on the discrepancies X raised. It is likely the Council considered X’s views about the issues they disagreed with but determined a child protection plan was necessary in any case. This is a merits decision for the Council to make, and an investigation is unlikely to change the outcome.

Failed to include X’s children’s views in the child protection process

14. In its complaint response the Council explained it spoke with X’s children on two occasions. It said their views were included in the social worker’s report.
15. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement, and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Conduct of the conference chair and social worker

16. In its complaint response the Council explained to X that it had investigated these issues. It decided the conference chair had acted appropriately and explained its reasons.
17. The Council told X it would pass the concerns about the social worker’s conduct to their manager but would not share the outcome of any action because the issue related to a staff conduct matter.
18. We will not investigate these complaints because we could not add to the investigation already conducted by the Council.

Delay in complaints handling

19. The Council apologised to X for the frustration caused by the delay in its complaints handling. It offered X £250 to acknowledge this. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate X’s complaint because the tests in our assessment code are not met.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman