Summary: Miss H complained the Council had failed to take appropriate action although it acknowledged an assessment on her son should not have been issued. Miss H was still in dialogue with the Council and hoped it would resolve these outstanding matters. As this case is primarily about data protection and records matters, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is best placed to investigate if the Council fails to take the appropriate remedial action.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss H, complains the Council failed to properly produce an assessment on her son, J. She also raised a number of issues around this such data security and social work practice. The Council agreed to remove information from J’s file but there was no evidence it had done so.
2. She asked the Ombudsman to look into this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Miss H with her complaint. I also considered the Council’s later response to her. I sent Miss H and the Council a copy of my draft decision and took comments they made into account before issuing a decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Miss H, has a child, J. It was agreed a single assessment would be carried out to see whether his needs had changed or whether any additional support would be appropriate. Any changes would be included in his care plan.
9. On 22 March 2019, a new social worker got in touch with Miss H and asked if he could come and speak with her in order to gather information for the assessment. She invited him to her house on 9 April 2019 and says he spent 1 hour and 37 minutes talking with her. She recorded this meeting.
10. On 10 April, the social worker sent a plan to her for comments. He did not send this securely. Miss H was concerned that some of the information had been cut and pasted from previous reports and did not reflect what she had spoken to him about. When she first criticised this, he called her at 08:00 the following morning. He said it was someone else’s file sent in error even though it had J’s name on the top. He also sent her emails to apparently clarify what had happened (which I reproduce here); ‘I put this together as a suggestion but at the moment it will be irrelevant because there is great improvement’ and then ‘kindly ignore the documents as I said I am not using the plan please. I will find So we the plan together. I did not mean to offend you at all’.
11. On 11 April he asked for a further meeting to finish the plan. Miss H said if he needed to speak with her he should do this at the school J attended. She did not want him to come to her house on the grounds she felt him untrustworthy. Miss H complained to the Council.
12. The Council responded on 30 April. It said a new social worker would be allocated to undertake an assessment and complete a care plan.
13. On 5 June, Miss H received the assessment apparently completed by the social worker. Many of the concerns she had with the previous draft had been copied over with no changes made. On 17 June, Miss H saw the new social worker and explained the issue. She made a complaint on 18 June. She also asked for her son’s files then, when she received them, said some were missing.
14. On 25 June, Miss H highlighted the sections of the report that were incorrect. The Council responded on 17 July. There were several areas where the social worker said he had gained information from ‘visits’ to Miss H when he had only visited her once.
15. The Council replied in full on 3 September. Officers accessed Miss H’s recording of the meeting she had with the social worker. The Council told Miss H ‘the assessment and its analysis will be removed from the Council’s electronic recording system to be replaced with (the new social worker’s) assessment. It is evident from the recording that (the first social worker) did not accurately record the information you gave him, that he used much of the information from the previous 2017 single assessment and that information from the previous assessment was not updated’. In addition, the assessment she received on 5 June ‘was still in draft and should not have been sent as it was’.
16. The Council told her training would take place, including about ensuring social workers sent information through secure email, that the social worker would be spoken to and that the Council would look at supporting amending records.
17. Although Miss H said this had not yet been put in place, she was still in dialogue with the Council and expecting a response. She wanted this to continue. In particular, she wanted to know what training would be carried out and how learning from the complaint would be captured. She also wanted assurance the faulty assessment would be removed from the file.
18. Further investigation will not achieve a different outcome for Miss H. The Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) is the agency best placed to consider this complaint, if she remains unhappy, as her complaint centres on data protection and information the Council holds on Miss H and her family.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have now discontinued my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman