Summary: Miss C complains the Council disclosed personal and sensitive information to her son. The Council accepts that it should have spoken to Miss C first and has already apologised for this. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress caused to Miss C and her son.

The complaint

1. Miss C complains that the Council failed to acknowledge the impact that a data breach had on her and her son. She says the Council did not apologise properly and did not consider her request for financial compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)
4. The Information Commissioner’s main concern is to improve the practices of organisations handling data. The Ombudsman considers the impact of any fault on the person making the complaint. We have investigated Miss C’s complaint to consider the impact of the disclosure on her and her son.
5. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Miss C about her complaint and considered the information she provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
8. I provided Miss C and the Council with a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

9. The Council completed a pre-birth assessment. Miss C’s son was the father of the unborn child. He was under the age of majority, vulnerable and lived away from his family home. The mother was younger and had conceived as a child.
10. The chronology within the assessment included details of a conversation Miss C had with a social worker about her son in 2001. Miss C had never told her son about this. The chronology stated that this conversation took place in 2014. The assessment was shared with the mother of the unborn child and Miss C’s son.
11. Miss C complained to the Council. She was unhappy that her son had been made aware of a personal conversation she had with a social worker, when he was a baby. She said the information was “erroneous” and should never have been included in the assessment. She explained that her son had mental health issues and receiving this information had caused him a lot of avoidable stress and anxiety. She also said it had put a strain on their relationship.
12. The Council referred the matter to its information management team as a potential data breach.
13. Miss C complained to the Council. The Council responded at stage one of its complaint procedure. In its letter the Council explained the assessment process. It said that the chronology that forms part of the pre-birth social work assessment should include information about both parents and to a lesser or greater degree their extended family. It said in this case they were assessing a situation where the father was under the age of majority, vulnerable and had been living away from the family home. The mother was younger and had conceived while still a child. Because of this the Council considered the information Miss C was referring to as relevant and important and should form part of the overall assessment.
14. The Council accepted that it should have spoken to Miss C prior to her son seeing the information. In doing so the Council would have established that he had no knowledge of social care involvement when he was a baby. The Council acknowledged that this would have given Miss C the opportunity to speak to him beforehand and the situation could have been avoided. The Council apologised for this. It also recognised that the situation was distressing for Miss C and her son. It apologised for this.
15. The Council confirmed that the issue had been passed to its information management team as a potential data breach. It said that discussions had been held with the social worker in relation to the chronology and the way in which the situation had unfolded. It said that as a result of the complaint it was looking at best practice models to determine whether it should modify its guidance. The Council concluded that no financial payment was required for the fault identified.
16. Miss C escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure. The Council said that the stage one response had explained in detail why the information was relevant in the broader context to her son’s situation. It acknowledged its failure to speak to Miss C prior to including the information in the assessment. The Council apologised and said it had nothing further to add.
17. Miss C remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. She said the Council had failed to properly apologise and respond to her complaint. She said the Council should apologise and make a financial payment to her and her son for the distress caused.

Analysis

18. The Council determined that it was important and relevant to include the information in the chronology of the pre-birth social work assessment. This was a decision it was entitled to make. It is my view that the Council has provided Miss C with a detailed explanation for its decision and of the social work assessment process.
19. The Council referred the issue as a potential data breach. In response to my enquiries the Council said that the Information Commissioner had “confirmed that the [it] was satisfied that the Council had met its data protection obligations in relation to this matter”.
20. The Council has already accepted it should have spoken to Miss C before sharing the assessment. This was fault. However, it refused Miss C’s request to provide a financial remedy. I must therefore consider whether the fault has had an adverse impact on Miss C and her son.
21. The Ombudsman has published guidance to explain how we recommend remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault had not occurred. When this is not possible, as in the case of Miss C, we may recommend the Council takes other steps. We may recommend a symbolic payment to acknowledge what could have been avoidable distress, harm or risk.
22. When the Ombudsman recommends a payment for distress, we only take account of avoidable distress that is the result of fault by the Council. A remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of £100 and £300.

Agreed action

23. The Council has already apologised to Miss C for issuing the assessment without speaking to her beforehand. It is taking action to review its guidance and practice. I am satisfied with this.
24. The Council also told me that it had updated its electronic records to reflect the chronology contained within the statutory assessment referred to 2001 and not 2014. Miss C had been informed of this amendment. I am satisfied with this.
25. That within four weeks of my final decision the Council will:
1. make a payment of £150 to recognise Miss C’s distress, and her time and trouble pursuing her complaint;
2. apologise to Miss C’s son for the factual error within the chronology and make a payment of £150 to recognise his distress.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation by upholding the complaint. I have made recommendations for a remedy for the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman