Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of matters involving her stepchild. We could not add to the complaint responses the Council has already provided. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider Miss X’s complaints about how the Council has processed personal data.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council dealt with a referral for help when her husband was given a terminal prognosis. Her late husband wanted his daughter to remain in Miss X’s care when he passed away. Miss X says the Council prevented this and caused significant distress. She also believes the Council has failed to manage, share or correct data and recorded contrary to the General Data Protection Regulations. She wants the Council to:

• correct its records;
• investigate the allocated Social Worker’s conduct;
• apologise to her family; and,
• award significant compensation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has responded to Miss X’s complaints under both stages of its corporate complaint procedure. It has clarified that Miss X’s stepchild had not been removed from their mother’s care due to safeguarding concerns. This meant the child could return to their mother’s care if they wished, despite this not aligning with the wishes of Miss X and her husband. The Council’s complaint responses to Miss X are detailed and thorough. The Council has also met with Miss X to discuss her concerns in line with her requests for reasonable adjustments. It has acknowledged how distressing her husband’s illness and sudden death has been on Miss X and her family. The Council has also apologised for times when its communication with Miss X could have been better.
6. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is not likely we would add anything significant to the responses she has received from the Council. The Council’s investigation appears to have been proportionate and the outcomes defensible.
7. If Miss X believes the Council has failed to properly manage, share and record personal data, she may pursue her legal right to access her personal data and rectification with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). We have no powers to intervene in such matters. The most we would wish to see is that a record of her dissenting views is added to the Council’s records. Her views are clearly set out in her complaints, so this has already been achieved, and we would not seek anything further.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because our intervention would not add anything significant to the responses she has already received from the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman