Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the content of a social work letter filed with a court. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. For the rest, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about data protection, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to consider Mr X’s complaint under its corporate complaints procedure to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council filed a letter with a court containing bias and inaccurate information.
2. Mr X also complained the Council did not amend nor add to its records after he asked it to do so.
3. Mr X also complained the Council wrongly considered his complaint under its two-stage corporate complaints procedure rather than the children’s statutory complaints process.
4. Mr X said this caused frustration and distress.
5. Mr X wants the Council to tell the court the letter it filed contained inaccurate information, to correct its records, apologise, provide him with a symbolic financial remedy and review its processes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. 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)
8. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

9. 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

10. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
11. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

12. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the content of a letter the Council filed with a court. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happened in court. Mr X could challenge the content of the letter in the court arena, and it was reasonable to expect him to do so.
13. The Information Commissioner (ICO) enforces data protection legislation. The main roles of the ICO are to uphold information rights in the public interest by promoting openness by public bodies and protecting the privacy of individuals.
14. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. The ICO is better placed to consider and decide complaints about data protection. This includes right to rectification matters.
15. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint using its two-stage corporate complaints procedure rather than the statutory children’s complaints process.
16. We will also not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. Mr X’s substantive complaint is about the accuracy of historical data the Council holds, rather than a direct link to a failure in social work delivery.
17. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to consider Mr X’s complaint under its corporate complaints procedure to justify an investigation. Additionally, 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

18. We cannot investigate Mr’s complaint because the law prevents us from investigating what happens in court. For the rest, the ICO is better placed to consider and decide complaints about data protection and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to consider Mr X’s complaint under its corporate complaints procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman