Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her family. Some of the complaint is late, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we cannot consider complaints about what happens in schools. If Miss X thinks the Council holds inaccurate information about her, then she should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the attitude of social workers who were involved with her family from 2010 onwards. She is unhappy with the way her children were treated in school and the Council’s refusal to investigate her complaints. Miss X has recently received information from the Council about her family which she says contains numerous inaccuracies.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) 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)
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

8. The events Miss X complain about date back to 2010. Her complaint includes:
• Social workers becoming involved with her family without good cause.
• Social workers being rude and refusing to listen to Miss X.
• Council officers visiting her children’s school and observing her children.
• Council officers questioning her in the street with their identity badges turned the wrong way around.
• Council officers carrying out surveillance from a car.
• Issues with her children’s school, including photographs being published on social media without Miss X’s consent, and staff and other pupils injuring her children.
• Inaccuracies in council records about Miss X’s health and crimes she has allegedly committed.
9. Miss X would like compensation from the Council. The Council says it will not investigate Miss X’s complaints about the actions of one of its social workers in 2010 because too much time has elapsed to carry out a proper investigation.
10. The events at the heart of Miss X’s complaint date back to 2010. It is clear she was aware of many of the issues when they allegedly took place. The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the particular circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are clear and compelling reasons to do so. I do not consider that to be the case here. I see no reason why Miss X could not have complained about most of the above issues much earlier. The exception at paragraph 3 therefore applies to her complaint. In reaching this decision I have taken into account the points I make below.
11. Miss X says she has only recently discovered some of the things she is unhappy about. The Council says it will not investigate because the events complained about took place too long ago. On balance, I do not think there is enough evidence of fault in the Council's decision for the Ombudsman to become involved.
12. Some of Miss X’s complaint is about things that happened in her children’s school. The Local Government Act is clear – the Ombudsman has no powers to consider such complaints. They are instead a matter for the school’s headteacher and governing body.
13. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes holding inaccurate information.
14. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about the accuracy of information held by a council, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. If Miss X is unhappy with the way the Council has responded to her reports of inaccurate information, she should approach the ICO about her concerns.
15. Miss X says she would like compensation from the Council. The Ombudsman does not award compensation and so this is not something we can achieve. An investigation by the Ombudsman into Miss X’s complaint is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. Her complaint is late, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we cannot look at what happens in schools. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider her concerns about the accuracy of council records.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman