Summary: We will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council relied on inaccurate information when assessing her application to become a respite foster carer. There is no worthwhile outcome to be achieved from further investigation and insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council failed to keep accurate records. She says it included fabricated statements in an assessment relating to her application to become a respite foster carer. She also says the Council relied on that information when making its decision. Ms X says the Council failed to take her neurodiversity into account. She wants the Council to correct its records and carry out a revised assessment.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

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. Ms X disputes information recorded during the assessment. She particularly disputes discussions about DBS disclosures and her transparency during the application process. The Council accepts some wording could have been clearer. However, it says it considered information Ms X provided both verbally and in writing. It also says its decision was based on concerns about transparency, not Early Help involvement. The Council has explained the information it considered.
8. Ms X and the assessor have different accounts of what was said during their discussions. We were not present and there is no independent evidence to show which account is correct. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome from further investigation.
9. Ms X wants the Ombudsman to require the Council to carry out a revised assessment. We are not an appeal body. Our role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process. The Council can take account of professional observations, views and information from a range of sources when carrying out assessments. I have not seen evidence that the Council failed to follow its assessment process. We will not investigate because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
10. Ms X also says the Council failed to take her neurodiversity into account. However, I have seen insufficient evidence to suggest this affected the assessment process or the Council's decision. We will not investigate this complaint.
11. Ms X also wants the Council to amend its records. She has made a Subject Access Request. If she believes the Council holds inaccurate personal data, she can raise the matter with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). The ICO is the appropriate body to consider concerns about the accuracy of personal data.

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X's complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman