Shropshire Council (24 008 914)
Category : Children's care services > Looked after children
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 01 Nov 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We are unlikely to find fault which has caused X a direct injustice and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.
The complaint
- X says the Council gave them wrong information when their child Y began as a looked after child. X also says the Council has not been involving them enough in decisions about Y’s life and has refused to provide information they say they want and need.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- 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
- any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by X which included the Council replies to them.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- X’s child, Y, became a looked after child in March 2023. Y is now 17. X says they consented to Y doing so under section 20 Children Act 1989. They say the Council told them information about the implication of what it meant and the information they would receive. They say this proved not to be accurate. This is because they say they were not informed Y’s views would be given more weight than their own and Y not consenting to them receiving information would mean they would not.
- X complained to the Council. It replied and explained its view on consent and Y’s rights to refuse the Council permission to provide X with information and to refuse permission X should consent to decisions about their life.
- We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decisions on consent given Y’s age. There is no suggestion they do not have capacity.
- X has requested information about Y which the Council has refused to provide. This is a data protection dispute. X has the right to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to information’ disputes.
- The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. The ICO is better suited to consider the consent dispute.
- It is unlikely we would find X has been caused any significant injustice by the inaccurate information he claims the Council gave him about section 20. It is unlikely it could have made a practical difference to Y’s looked after status as Y could have requested accommodation if X had refused.
Final decision
- We will not investigate X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault which has caused X a direct injustice and the ICO is better placed.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman