Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s social services team’s involvement in her family. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply, the complaint involves bodies not within our jurisdiction and there are other bodies better placed to consider her concerns.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about a Youth Offending Teams actions and the Council’s attitude towards her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the justice bodies, like the probation service. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about action taken by a policing body in connection with the investigation or prevention of crime. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 2, as amended)
6. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information Ms X provided with her complaint. I considered Ms X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Ms X complained to the Council in 2019 about its part in a youth offending team’s involvement with her and her child, Y. She complained to the Council about data sharing within that team and Council officers’ attitude towards her. She also complained about Y moving imprisonment placement between 2013 and 2015, CAHMS failures to help Y, and the imprisonment affecting Y’s education.
9. Ms X says Y was injured by the police and while in custody. She says the youth offending team did not properly support Y properly.
10. Ms Y says she found out in 2018 the Council had said in records her parenting had caused Y’s offending and behaviour. She says the Council’s officers’ attitude towards her was not helpful. She has provided a log of actions which end in 2015.

Analysis

11. The youth offending team is a multi agency body. We cannot investigate the police’s actions while it investigated crime. We cannot investigate the probation service, the justice sector or CAHMS’s role. We could only look at the Council’s sole actions.
12. We will not investigate allegations of fault which Y suffers the direct injustice without Y’s consent to Ms X complaining on their behalf.
13. We will not investigate events which have been known to Ms X for more than 12 months without good reasons. This applies to Ms X’s complaint about the lack of support to her during the period she complains about. There are no good reasons we should use our discretion to do so because:
1. The main injustice on all those events is to Y
2. The main fault is alleged against bodies which we cannot investigate, such as the probation service, the justice sector and CAHMS.
3. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to have complained about a lack of support at the time she needed it.
4. Our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, not to hold a single officer accountable. If Ms X has concerns about the professionalism or integrity of an individual social worker, it is reasonable to expect her to report her concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.
14. Parliament set up the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider complaints about data sharing. Ms X can ask it to consider her complaint the Council holds inaccurate information about her. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to complain to the ICO particularly because it involves bodies which we cannot investigate and child protection which has complex exemptions.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman should not and cannot investigate this complaint. This is because there are no good reasons the 12 month rule should not apply. The complaint involves bodies we cannot investigate, the main allegations affect another person and it is reasonable to expect Ms X to complain to the ICO about data sharing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman