Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has failed to compensate him for a statement in a report which implied he posed a risk to his partner’s children. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr B to pursue the matter in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council has failed to compensate him for a statement in a report which implied he posed a risk to his partner’s children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mr B has said in support of his complaint and in response to my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B’s partner’s children are in the care of the Council. In Council reports relating to the children, Mr B is referred to as their mother’s partner.
6. Mr B complains that a report completed by the Council referred to the mother’s partner as posing a risk to the children. He says that this referred to her previous partner, not him, and was included in error. He complains that it gives the clear impression that he was the perpetrator of abuse.
7. The Council has upheld Mr B’s complaint. It says it has corrected the report and reissued it to bodies and individuals who are still involved with the children. Mr B is not satisfied with the Council’s response. He points out that the report was shared with the children’s schools and foster carers.
8. Mr B argues that the Council’s response is inadequate, in that it fails to address the distress he has been caused and the damage to his reputation. He believes the Council should provide him with financial compensation.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. The Council has already accepted that it was at fault, so the outstanding matter is whether Mr B should be financially compensated. Essentially, Mr B complains that the Council has defamed him. Defamation is a matter where the court is better placed than the Ombudsman to decide whether financial compensation is appropriate.
10. It is open to Mr B to make a claim for damages against the Council. If the Council chooses not to settle, Mr B may take the matter to court. It would be reasonable for him to do so and the Ombudsman will not intervene.
11. In his response to my draft decision, Mr B argues that, aside from the issues of defamation and compensation, the complaint raises issues relating to the handling and access to his personal issues. The Information Commissioner is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr B to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman