Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s contact with Children’s Social Care. The Council has already investigated Mr X’s complaint and provided explanations for its involvement, and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Additionally, some aspects of Mr X’s complaint are better suited to be considered by the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about various aspects of his contact with the Council relating to his children. He says it failed to provide him with information about allegations made against him. He also says the Council completed a Child and Family (CAF) Assessment which did not properly take account of his views and pertinent evidence he provided and then did not supply the assessment until after Family Court proceedings.
2. Mr X is concerned about inaccurate information being held about him and says the Council’s actions meant he was separated from his children.

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 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is another body better placed to consider part of the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained about his contact with the Council, saying the CAF assessment it completed was not fair and balanced. He told us the impact of this was that he was separated from his children.
9. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint. It explained it started a CAF assessment after a referral made to it by the police. It signposted Mr X to make a subject access request to the police about the referral. It also told him its records demonstrated he was told, at an early stage of its involvement, why the Council was carrying out an assessment of his children’s needs. The Council also pointed out it had no legal involvement in organising his contact with his children and could not have intervened with this matter.
10. Mr X said he was concerned about the accuracy of information held about him. The Council asked him to provide evidence of instances where he believed there was inaccurate information. The Council also told Mr X it had a record of his views, and its case notes included a record of allegations and counter allegations between Mr X and another party.
11. Mr X was unhappy at delays in the Council completing the CAF assessment and said this meant he could not prepare adequately for the Family Court proceedings. The Council said the CAF assessment was not used as evidence in court, and it had completed it inside the required timescales.
12. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council has already investigated the complaint, provided explanations for its involvement, and asked Mr X to send his views on where information it recorded was believed to be inaccurate.
13. Therefore, further investigation by us would not lead to a significantly different outcome for Mr X. In any case, if Mr X was concerned about any evidence that was or was not available, that may have affected his Family Court proceedings, it would be reasonable to have expected him to raise these matters in court.
14. Regarding Mr X’s concerns about the accuracy of information held about him, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has extensive powers to address rectification of records and so is a body better placed to look at these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is another body better placed to look at a complaint about information rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman