Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a family assessment. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about the accuracy of Council records.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to correct inaccuracies in a family assessment. He says the report is biased against him, the Council has unfairly dismissed his concerns, and the matter has caused distress. He wants the Council to re-write the report in a fair and unbiased way.

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 information rights or 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains about a family assessment completed in February 2025. He says the assessment record contains incorrect information, did not include his evidence, was unfairly biased towards his children’s mother and reached inaccurate conclusions.
7. In response to his complaint, the Council met with him to discuss his concerns. It agreed to amend some parts of the record to remove factual inaccuracies and to include his views. It also said it would add his complaint and the Council’s response to the record, so they could be viewed together. It advised him that if he considered that court-ordered contact arrangements with his children were not being adhered to, he would need to refer this back to the courts.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. I have reviewed the assessment and am satisfied it appropriately includes Mr X’s views. We cannot ask the Council to change its records, nor can we question a professional view or judgement. The Council has appropriately responded to his concerns and is now satisfied the record is accurate. Although I acknowledge Mr X does not agree with the Council’s position, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has considered this matter to warrant an investigation.
9. If Mr X believes the Council’s records still contact inaccurate information which the Council is refusing to rectify, it is open to him to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is the UK regulator for information rights and data protection. It is better placed to consider a complaint about the accuracy of records.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about the accuracy of the Council’s records.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman