Summary: Mr X complained the Council removed a foster child from his care in 2016 based on inaccurate information, and later repeated that information. We will not investigate this late complaint. This is because Mr X could reasonably have complained sooner, and in any event the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council removed a foster child from his care in 2016 based on inaccurate information it received from another council. He also complained about it later repeating the information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe there is another body better placed to consider the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained to us.
5. I considered Mr X’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2016, the Council removed a child Mr X was fostering from his care. It based its decision on information another council provided about Mr X posing a risk to children. Mr X says he has been seeking information and resolution since 2016.
7. Mr X says the other council did not respond to a Subject Access Request until 2018. He blames this delay for his delay in complaining. However, Mr X knew in 2016 there was an allegation recorded about him, which he believed to be inaccurate, and which led to the removal of the child from his care. He had enough information at that time to complain, and it would have been reasonable for him to complain to us within a year of the child’s removal. There is not a good reason he did not escalate his complaint at that time. It would be difficult now, due to the time that has passed, for us to come to sound and fair conclusions.
8. Substantial parts of Mr X’s complaint relate to issues revolving around data protection. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to consider complaints about organisations’ information practices. Therefore, in any event, Mr X’s complaint would best be considered by the ICO. Unlike us, the ICO can consider whether the Council has breached data protection legislation. It can consider whether information the Council holds, or has shared, is inaccurate and whether it should be amended or removed.
9. Part of Mr X’s complaint is about the Council more recently having repeated the information Mr X disputed in further documents. I have considered whether there is good reason for us to investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint alone, given that it is about events within the 12 months before he complained to the Ombudsman. There is not a good reason, in the circumstances, for us to only investigate this part of the complaint. This is because our ability to reach a finding would largely depend on the outcome of any investigation the ICO decides to carry out into earlier events. The ICO would therefore be best placed to consider the entire complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this late complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to complain much sooner and in any event, the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about organisations’ information practices.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman