Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council’s officer was at fault in his intervention in the issues between Miss B and her former partner. This is because it is unlikely we would achieve anything significant by doing so.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Miss B, complains that the Council’s officer was at fault in his intervention in the issues between her and her former partner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, 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)

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. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Miss B has said in support of her complaint and given her the opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss B, her former partner and their son were the subject of early intervention by the Council’s Families First service. Miss B argues that the Council’s officer was negligent in dealing with the case. She argues that his relationship with her former partner was inappropriate, and that he disclosed confidential information. She also argues that the reports the Council completed are inaccurate. She complains that, as a result of the Council’s intervention, she no longer has contact with her son.
7. The Council has responded to Miss B’s complaint. It denies that its officer breached her confidentiality. It does accept that there was delay on the officer’s part, and it apologises for this. But it denies that this led to a different outcome than would otherwise have been the case, or that it is responsible for Miss B’s lack of contact with her son.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint. because it is unlikely we could achieve anything significant for her. There is nothing to be gained by reinvestigating those aspects of the complaint that the Council has already upheld, and we will not do so. Neither will we intervene in matters relating to Miss B’s contact with her son. This is because this is a matter which can be decided in court.
9. Miss B has the right to bring her concerns about the alleged breach of confidentiality to the attention of the Information Commissioner, who is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider them.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman