Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in carrying out a care assessment and meeting the needs of Ms X’s child. Doing so would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome from that already offered by the Council, and we could not recommend the Council does anything more than the assessment it has already offered.

The complaint

1. Ms X said the Council delayed carrying out a care assessment for her child and meeting her needs. She said there was an assessment in September 2024, but the Council has since failed to explain what happened to her data and why it needs to carry out another assessment. She wanted a care plan and package for her child and the Council to explain what happened to the assessment in September 2024.

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 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)
4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

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. In responding to Ms X’s complaint, the Council accepted it failed to respond to her request for an assessment of her child’s needs between March and September 2024. It apologised and offered her £500.
8. The correspondence I have seen shows the Council offered to start the assessment on a date in early September 2024, but that Ms X was unavailable for part of that month. A social worker came out before the end of the month and Ms X says she spent two hours answering questions.
9. The Council told me the worker became ill and was unable to complete the paperwork. In writing to Ms X, it accepted it should not have taken until November for it to get back in touch with her, and apologised.
10. Ms X’s position since then has been that she is not prepared to repeat the process she went through with the original worker. She wants to know what happened to her data.
11. If we were to investigate, we would not consider the data matter. Data processing matters are ones the Information Commissioner (ICO) is better placed to deal with than us. The ICO has powers to order date disclosure and to impose penalties that we lack.
12. In any case, we would be unlikely to recommend the Council offered Ms X’s child a care package on the basis of an incomplete assessment left by a worker who was taken ill. We would be more likely to recommend a payment for inconvenience caused by delay, an apology, and a fresh assessment without further delay. The Council has already offered all of these. That Ms X considers the assessment was completed in September 2025 does not affect that.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:

• Doing so would not be likely to lead to a different or better outcome than that already offered by the Council; and
• Another body is better placed than us to consider matters of data processing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman