Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the accuracy of a child protection document. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed and it is unlikely we would find fault in a decision to carry out a child protection investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council wrongly stated an allegation against them as a foster carer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about action taken by or on behalf of any local policing body in connection with the investigation or prevention of crime. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, Section 26, paragraph 2 as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss X which includes the Council’s reply.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. A foster child made an allegation against Miss X and her partner. Miss X says the Council recorded the allegation wrongly. She says this meant it held a child protection strategy meeting and carried out a child protection investigation. Miss X says the Police also investigated because of this allegation.
8. The Data Protection Act gives Miss X the right to ask the Council to amend any factual mistakes in records. This is a ‘right to rectification’. If the Council fails to amend any factual errors Miss X has a right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.
9. There were other allegations made. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is not to ask whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to call a strategy meeting and carry out a child protection investigation.
10. We cannot investigate the Police’s decision to investigate a crime.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the ICO is better placed to consider whether the Council’s records are correct.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman