Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s refusal to investigate her complaint about the involvement of Children’s Services with her family, on the basis that it was out of time. We find that the Council was at fault. It did not properly consider her reasons for the delay or whether the complaint could be investigated under the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to now investigate the complaint at stage 2 of the statutory process, after deciding whether some parts of the complaint should be included. This is a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council has unreasonably refused to investigate her complaint about the involvement of Children’s Services with her family, on the basis that it was out of time. She says she needed more time to make her complaint due to her mental health condition, and the Council should have made reasonable adjustments for this.
2. As a result of the Council’s refusal to investigate she says she has had no recognition of the impact of the Council’s involvement on her and her children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. This includes reports produced for the courts. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. 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

6. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the information she provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries. I considered relevant law, policy and guidance on councils’ duties towards children and on complaints procedures. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
7. 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.

Back to top

What I found

Councils’ duties towards children

8. Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need by providing services appropriate to the child’s needs. (Children Act 1989, section 17)
9. Following a child and family assessment if a council decides the child needs support under section 17 it will issue a Child in Need plan.
10. Local authorities have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
11. If the council decides following an assessment of the family circumstances that the threshold is met for a child protection enquiry, it will hold a multi-agency child Protection Conference, which may recommend a Child Protection Plan.

Complaints procedures

Statutory children’s social care complaints procedure

12. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. At stage 2 of this procedure, the Council appoints an Independent Investigating Officer and an Independent Person (who is responsible for overseeing the investigation). If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage 2 investigation, they can ask for a stage 3 review. If the complainant is not satisfied at the end of this process they may complain to the Ombudsman.
13. The Government has provided statutory guidance for local authorities, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, on the operation of the statutory complaints procedure (’the Guidance’). This sets out which services a person may complain about under the procedure and which are not covered. Generally:
• complaints about matters relating to child in need assessments and services should be considered under the procedure;
• complaints about child protection processes do not have to be considered under the procedure.
14. The statutory procedure can cover complaints about social work information or reports that have gone to court (Guidance paragraph 2.2.3) but does not have to do so where these are welfare reports ordered by the court, such as ‘section 7’ reports. These are reports which the court may order in connection with private family law proceedings under section 7 of the Children Act 1989.
15. There are timescales for councils to meet in responding to complaints at each stage. There is no statutory time-limit for a complainant to ask to go to stage 2 after the stage 1 response, but the guidance says councils “may wish to recommend” a 20 working-day time limit.
16. Councils do not need to consider complaints made more than one year after the events giving rise to the complaint occurred. But the council can use its discretion to extend the time limit if:
• it is still possible to consider the complaint effectively and efficiently; or
• it would be unreasonable to expect the complainant to have made the complaint earlier. (Guidance paragraph 3.3.2)
17. Councils should make their decision about late complaints on a case by case basis and there should generally be a presumption in favour of accepting the complaint unless there is good reason not to. (Guidance paragraph 3.3.1)
18. Possible grounds for accepting a complaint made after one year include:
• genuine issues of vulnerability;
• where the local authority believes there is still benefit to the complainant in proceeding;
• “there is likely to be sufficient access to information or individuals involved at the time, to enable an effective and fair investigation to be carried out." (Guidance paragraph 3.3.3)
19. Where a complainant has other related complaints that do not fall within the statutory procedure the council has discretion to consider whether there are advantages in accepting these into a single investigation. The guidance encourages councils to offer a complete single response where possible. (Guidance paragraph 7.8.1)

Council’s corporate complaints procedure

20. The council has a two-stage corporate complaints procedure as follows.
21. Stage one is usually carried out by the manager responsible for the service being complained about. If the complaint is not resolved at stage one, the complainant may ask to go to stage two.
22. Stage two is a review for the Chief Executive, usually carried out by an officer independent of the service being complaints about, who will produce a report and recommendations.
23. The policy says the corporate procedure will not be used in the following circumstances:
• for matters which should be dealt with under other procedures such as the statutory procedure for children’s social care;
• where a matter is more than one year old, unless these matters concern delays by the council or where the complainant did not have proper opportunity to bring the complaint earlier;
• for matters which can only be considered by the courts;
• for complaints about breaches of confidentiality. Complaints about data breaches are investigated by the Data Protection Team;
• claims for damages. These will be referred to the Council’s litigation and insurance team.

Complaints about child protection conferences

24. A parent may complain about the management of or recommendations made at a Child Protection Conference under the Pan Sussex Child Protection and Safeguarding Procedures. There is a three-stage complaints process.
• Stage 1 is exploration by the Conference Chair. A complaint should normally be made within ten working days of the Conference. The Conference Chair should meet the complainant within ten working days of receiving the complaint to discuss the complaint and the outcome the complainant is seeking.
• The Conference Chair provides a written response to the complainant within a further ten working days. The letter should include information about how to pursue the concerns further if the complainant is still dissatisfied.
• If the complainant is not satisfied, stage 2 is a formal consideration at a complaint meeting with a senior manager to try and address areas of dissatisfaction and resolve matters where possible. The complainant should receive a written response. There is no timescale given for asking for the complaint to go to stage 2.
• If the complainant is still not satisfied they may ask for the complaint to go to an appeal panel within 20 working days of receiving the stage 2 response.

Ombudsman’s Focus report

25. The Ombudsman issued a ‘Guide for Practitioners on the Children’s statutory complaints process’ in March 2021 giving his view on how councils should apply the law and statutory Guidance on using the children’s social care complaints procedure.

Outline of events

26. Miss X lives with her partner, Mr Z, and their child, C. She has another child, B, from a previous relationship with Mr Y. B now lives with her father under a Child Arrangements Order and has contact with Miss X. Miss X has a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder (BDP).
27. When Miss X and Mr Y separated around ten years ago B went to live with Miss X and continued to have contact with her father. Children’s Social Care became involved with the family in 2018 when Mr Y contacted the Council with concerns about Miss X’s care of B. This followed a court decision that B should live with Miss X.
28. The Council allocated a social worker who carried out a child and family assessment which recommended placing the children on a Child in Need plan. Miss X did not agree, and the Council decided to hold a strategy meeting to consider whether to start a child protection investigation. The decision was to carry out a child protection enquiry, which led to an Initial Child Protection Conference (CPC) taking place in January 2019.
29. The Council decided not to pursue a child protection investigation at that stage as Miss X agreed to a Child in Need Plan at the Conference. Miss X says she felt forced into this agreement. She says she asked the Council to remove the children from the Child in Need plan but it warned that the alternative would be to return to a CPC with a view to placing the children on a Child Protection Plan.
30. Following an incident at Miss X’s house in spring 2019 when the police were called, the Council started the child protection process again and put in place a safety plan for Miss X and Mr Y in relation to the care of the children. Miss X says she had no input into the plan and did not agree to it.
31. A CPC took place in July 2019. The children were placed on a Child Protection Plan.
32. There were private law proceedings running alongside the child protection and child in need processes. Mr Y applied to court for an order for B to live with him. The court ordered a section 7 welfare report. The Council allocated another social worker who carried out an assessment and produced a report recommending shared residence between Miss X and Mr Y. However as the case progressed social workers changed, more information was obtained and the court ordered an update on the welfare report. The proceedings concluded in June 2020 when the court decided B should live with her father and have contact with Miss X. The Council decided to end the Child in Need plan.

Complaint

33. At the end of April 2019 Miss X made a complaint to the Council about Children’s Social Care’s involvement with her family. The Council noted the complaint seemed to cover three different areas. It logged the complaint as a stage one complaint under its corporate complaints procedure. It responded on 28 May 2019. I summarise the complaint and the Council’s response below in relation to those parts of the complaints which Miss X tried to pursue later. She complained about other issues as well, but I have not included them here.
• Complaint – That she was forced to accept a Child in Need plan

Response – There were concerns warranting a recommendation for a Child in Need plan. Miss X was correct that this does need parental consent, but if there are concerns that a child may be at risk of significant harm the Council will need to hold a strategy discussion to consider a child protection investigation. Initially she refused a Child in Need plan which led to an Initial CPC in January 2019, where she gave her agreement and so she was not forced.

• Complaint - Failure to inform her of a violent incident at Mr Y’s house. The Council did not take account of this when ‘placing’ B with him and meant she had no opportunity to seek a Child Arrangements Order in court.

Response – Records show the Council contacted her at the time and proposed a visit to discuss the matter, but then it was referred to the council in the area where B was staying with her grandparents. The Council apologised if she was not informed had been intended. The Council also clarified that it did not ‘place’ B with her father. That was a private law matter.

• Complaint - Lack of satisfactory sibling contact arrangements and why she could only see B when supervised.

Response – This was a decision of the court under the private law proceedings.

• Complaint – It was a breach of data rights to discuss her younger child, C, at the Initial CPC in front of Mr Y.

Response – She should have a meeting with the Conference Chair to discuss the issue.

• Complaints about other issues relating to the CP Conferences – being told at short notice at the second CPC about the supervised contact arrangement, and information missing from the Conference record.

Response – She should discuss these issues at the meeting with the Conference Chair.

34. At the end of the Council’s letter it advised Miss X she had a right to go to stage 2 of the corporate complaints policy if she was dissatisfied. It did not give her a timescale.
35. In mid-July 2019 Miss X had meeting with Chair of the CP Conference to discuss her concerns about what had taken place at the Conferences. The Chair wrote to Miss X responding to her concerns on 31 July 2019, including the following.
• In response to the complaint that Miss X felt forced into agreeing a Child in Need plan the Chair said Miss X and both fathers were present. Both fathers made it clear they wanted to work with the Child in Need plan. Miss X agreed but said she felt forced and her view was recorded. On balance the Council decided it should try and work with the family under Child in Need plan but it was clear if this did not work the case would have to go back to a CP Conference if there were still concerns. The decision to make a Child in Need plan was for Children’s Social Care.
• There was a response to complaints about decision-making at the Conference, access to information and who had been invited, and whether Miss X had had a chance to respond to an issue in the social worker’s report.
• If Miss X dissatisfied with the response she could write to the Social Care Complaints Manager.
36. In May 2020 Miss X complained to the Council about its decision to send a new social worker to give evidence in court rather than the original social worker who had written the first section 7 report. The Council said it could not deal with this issue under its complaints procedure as it concerned the court proceedings. Miss X asked the Council to move this complaint to the next stage. She said this was separate from her original complaint, which she would continue with “when I have the emotional strength to do so”.
37. In the course of Miss X’s contacts with the Council about the question of which social worker was going to attend court, the Council issued a warning to Miss X under its policy on managing unreasonable behaviour. The warning was about her verbal abuse of officers. The Council referred to ‘profanities’ and ‘a broad range of insults’ and said her conduct was “absolutely unacceptable”. The Council offered her one officer as a single point of contact if she wanted to raise any concerns about the Council.
38. On 16 July 2020 Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council. She said now that the private family law proceedings were over she thought it was appropriate for the Council to address the concerns she had raised about its involvement with her family from around September 2018 to June 2020. She set out the history of the Council’s involvement with her family as she saw it and her disagreement with its approach. She then listed the issues in the complaint she wanted the Council to investigate under various headings, as follows.
• ‘section 17 breach’ – She said she felt the Council had forced her family onto a Child in Need plan, when support under section 17 should be voluntary. Then the social worker was absent and could not provide enough support to the family. She said this led her mental health to “spiral out of control”, and she became angry and suffered paranoia and anxiety because of feeling constantly monitored. She said her behaviour became erratic. Also B’s problems worsened and the relationship between her and Mr Y became more, not less, acrimonious.
• ‘lack of consistency’ – Miss X complained about the large number of social workers involved with her case which she said meant several of them could not build a proper relationship with the family. She also complained about actions of individual social workers, including what she called a ‘malicious referral’.
• ‘lost opportunity’ – Miss X said the Council should have informed her of an incident at Mr Y’s house in April 2018 which would have given her the opportunity to apply to court for a Child Arrangements Order.
• ‘data breach’ – She said at the January 2019 CP Conference the meeting discussed issues relating to her younger child, C, in front of Mr Y. She said this should not have happened and breached C’s data protection rights.
• ‘Equality Act breach’ – Miss X complained that the way the Council dealt with her failed to recognise the effect of her condition of BPD on her behaviour and led it to deal with her distress inappropriately by issuing warnings against her and reporting her to the police.
• ‘unprofessional change of opinion’ – She complained about the change of recommendation in the court welfare report, which she said was not justified.
• ‘the council appeasing the complainant’ – She alleged that the Council changed its position on the court report, switching support from her to Mr Y, based on the fact that Mr Y had made a complaint after the first report.
39. Overall she said she felt her voice had been ignored, including when she had asked the Council not to end the Child in Need plan immediately after the court case was over so it could monitor B’s welfare in Mr Y’s care. Miss X said she wanted the Council to put in place various improvements in its practice and procedures, re-open B’s case and recognise the distress caused to her by the Council’s actions, pay her compensation, and offer B counselling.
40. The Council replied to Miss X’s complaint on 23 August 2020. It said it would not take her complaint forward. It gave its reasons as follows.
• The events Miss X complained about dated back to 2018. It referred to its corporate complaints policy and the section on matters more than one year old. It said:

“I cannot accept a complaint relating to the child and family assessment, child in need plan, or anything linked to the work with your family dating back over 12-months”.

• This included her complaint about changes of social worker which it said was about staff turnover dating back over three years and did not indicate fault by the Council.
• Complaints about CPCs were dealt with under the Pan Sussex Child Protection and Safeguarding procedures, which includes timescales families must adhere to when making a complaint. It said the complaint about the Conference in January 2019 was now well out of time and it could not consider it.
• Miss X should contact the Council’s Data Protection Team about the alleged data breach during the CPC in January 2019. Or she should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Council’s Legal Services if she wanted to make a claim.
• It did not know what her complaint about a malicious referral referred to.
• Regarding the alleged breach of the Equality Act, it said it could not consider a complaint about the Council’s reactions to her presenting behaviour. It said it was not clear what action she thinks the Council should have taken and when.
• The alleged ‘unprofessional change of opinion in s.7 report’ was linked to the court process and Miss X could have raised it in court. So it could not be considered under the complaints procedure.
• Regarding the complaint about the Council ‘appeasing the complainant’, it said the complaints process was separate from any continuing operational work and it could not comment on other people’s complaints.
2. The letter ended by offering Miss X the chance to discuss the response by telephone. If she did not agree with it, it advised her to contact the Ombudsman.
3. Miss X replied by email the following day, 24 August 2020. She explained the delay in bringing the complaint. She said the distress caused by the Council’s actions and the court proceedings meant she could not deal with pursuing the complaint as events occurred. She wanted to wait until the court proceedings finished. She asked the Council to recognise her disability and that it would have caused her more distress if she had tried to deal with individual elements of the complaint as she went along. In any event she says she made a formal complaint in 2019 which the Council responded to shortly after and it made no mention of the time limit for going from stage 1 to stage 2. She referred to the meeting with the Conference Chair and said this did not resolve matters for her and “therefore the matter was stayed until the whole involvement was concluded last month”. She said this was a continuation of the original ‘claim’ that was made in time.
4. She said the behaviour the Council had warned her about was a result of the stress she was under. She asked the Council to make a reasonable adjustment for her disability by dealing with the whole complaint now. She said there were multiple witnesses to her being so distressed by the situation that she had not been able to continue with the second stage of her complaint until the conclusion of the family court case.
5. At the same time she wrote to the Executive Director of Children’s Services asking the Council to provide a proper response to her complaint. The Executive Director replied to Miss X at the end of August 2020, agreeing with the decision not to progress the complaint further. She said if Miss X disagreed with the decision she could complain to the Ombudsman and the Council would follow any recommendations made.
6. In early September 2020 Miss X wrote to the Chair of the CPC referencing the Chair’s letter following the meeting in July 2019. She said the Council’s conduct and procedures had made her very ill over the last year and she had only been able to respond now. She asked the Chair to move the complaint to stage 2 for a “proper investigation”.
7. The CPC Chair replied the same day referring to the Council’s complaint response of 23 August 2020 where it said the complaint about the January 2019 CPC was now well out of time and would not be considered.

Council’s response to Ombudsman’s enquiries

47. I asked the Council why, in deciding not to progress Miss X’s complaint to stage 2, it had referred to its corporate procedure and not to the statutory children’s social care complaints process, given that several elements of the complaint were about Children’s Social Care.
48. The Council said Miss X was asking for a retrospective look at historical issues. It said the complaint straddled issues relating to social care, child protection and breach of data rules. It said to avoid fragmentation of such a broad complaint, it would normally initially consider the complaint under the corporate procedure. This allows it to provide a full response, endorsed by the Chief Executive, and then the opportunity to go to the Ombudsman.
49. I also asked the Council how it had considered whether to investigate the complaint despite it being late, and Miss X’s arguments about why she had not made the complaint earlier, including reference to her mental health condition. The Council said Miss X had used the complaints process before and knows how to do so. If she had shown any difficulty in raising issues with social care staff or complaints officers it would have looked into whether there were any barriers to her pursuing a complaint within the 12-month period. It felt she could reasonably have raised concerns formally with the complaints team at any time as she was able to communicate effectively with social care staff and had been in frequent contact with the Council.

Analysis – was there fault causing injustice?

50. In looking at how the Council has responded to Miss X’s complaint I have considered how it dealt with two issues: the question of which complaints procedure is appropriate and the time limit.

Which procedure

51. It is true that Miss X’s complaint covers issues that on their own would normally fall under different complaints procedures: the Council’s corporate complaints procedure, the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure, the Pan Sussex Child Protection and Safeguarding Procedures, and data protection. Some parts of the complaint concern decisions of the court that cannot be considered under any complaints procedure. Some are potentially capable of being considered under more than one process, such as the complaint about disclosure of confidential information at the CPC. But most of matters Miss X raised relate to social work practice that come within the remit of the statutory procedure.
52. As the statutory Guidance advises, councils have discretion to include other issues in one investigation under the statutory procedure even where they are not normally covered.
53. In our Guide for Practitioners on the Children’s statutory complaints process the Ombudsman says:

“Councils are likely to receive complaints where there is an overlap between those areas which are inside and outside the scope of the procedure. The guidance allows councils to use their discretion to consider all parts of a complaint in a single investigation and response. Complainants should not be disadvantaged by any overlap between complaint procedures. Councils should consider which procedure is likely to produce the best result for the complainant and the child or young person. Councils should keep a written record of decisions they make about which procedure to use and explain their reasons.”

54. The Council says it would normally deal with such a multi-stranded complaint under its corporate complaints procedure. I have not seen evidence that it considered in this particular case whether it could deal with the complaint under the statutory procedure. I consider it was at fault in failing to do so.
55. The Guidance encourages councils to offer a single complete response where possible. As the Council’s corporate procedure excludes consideration of matters that fall within the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure, I consider that in order to follow that Guidance and for the complainant not to be disadvantaged, the Council should treat the complaint as eligible to be considered under the statutory procedure. It will still need to decide which parts of the complaint can be investigated.

Time limit

56. Under the statutory complaints procedure the Council may extend the time limit beyond 12 months. The presumption should be to do so unless there is good reason not to. Under the corporate complaints process the Council should consider whether the complainant had a proper opportunity to make the complaint within 12 months.
57. Again I have not seen evidence that the Council considered using its discretion at the time. It has told the Ombudsman it felt Miss X was capable of using the complaints procedure and communicating effectively with staff. But the complaint response said the Council “cannot accept” the complaint. There is no evidence that it considered the reasons Miss X gave for asking the Council to accept the complaint out of time in her email of 24 August 2020. In response to that email the Council repeated its position that it could not investigate the complaint and she should pursue it through other routes. It did not address the reasons she gave.
58. I consider that Miss X has given sufficient grounds for the Council to exercise discretion and investigate the complaint late, given the presumption to accept a complaint unless there are good reasons not to. The effect of the child protection investigation and the court case on Miss X’s state of mental health and her diagnosis of BPD indicates ‘genuine issues of vulnerability’ as referred to in the Guidance. Although the Council says her frequent contact demonstrates she was able to raise concerns, dealing with the day to day demands of a continuing court process and children’s social care’s involvement is not the same as compiling a multi-stranded stage 2 complaint. Miss X put the Council on notice in May 2020 that she wanted to take her original complaint further but did not have the emotional strength to do so at that point.
59. Also the Council has not shown it considered Miss X’s point that she wished to wait until the court proceedings were over before continuing to pursue her complaint. This is a legitimate factor to be taken into account. It is a common reason for complainants and councils to put a complaint on hold. Miss X contacted the Council promptly once the court case was over to say she was now ready to continue with her complaint.
60. Nor has the Council considered Miss X’s point that the complaint of July 2020 was a continuation of complaints made in April 2019 (although she wrongly referred to July 2019). The Council did not give Miss X any timescales for progressing the complaint from stage 1 to stage 2 either under the corporate or the child protection and safeguarding complaints procedures, and there is no time limit at this stage under the statutory procedure.
61. The Council is entitled to issue warnings under its unreasonable behaviour policy where a complainant displays abusive behaviour, as it has a duty to protect its staff. However the Council has not addressed Miss X’s claim that the impact of events on her mental health affected her ability to pursue the complaint, or her request that it would be a reasonable adjustment for her mental health condition to allow her to continue with the complaint now.
62. Also in this case I do not consider the events complained about are so old they could be deemed historic. Miss X asked to go to stage 2 in July 2020, following a first stage complaint in April 2019. Most of the matters complained of date back to September 2018 and continued to June 2020. Children’s Social Care records will still be available, even if all members of staff involved at the time may not be. So the age of the complaint should not prevent an effective or efficient investigation.
63. Based on the information I have seen so far, I consider there was fault in the way the Council responded to the complaint. It did not properly consider whether it could use the statutory children’s social care procedure to provide a single response. It did not properly consider Miss X’s reasons for delay in bringing the complaint. This has caused her an injustice as she has not had the chance to have her complaint independently investigated at stage 2.
64. On balance, considering all the circumstances above, I consider that the Council should exercise discretion to consider Miss X’s complaint under the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure.
65. It will need to decide which parts of the complaint to investigate. My view is:
• Complaints about social work assessments, multiple changes of social worker, lack of support from social workers, actions of social workers such as the alleged ‘malicious referral’, the ‘section 17 breach’ and Child in Need plan, and closing the case too soon, fall within the statutory procedure.
• The complaint about the data breach could be directed to the Data Protection Team. Equally, as the complaint is about inappropriate disclosure of confidential information at a CPC, it could come under the Pan Sussex Child Protection and Safeguarding complaints procedure. However, the Chair’s response under this procedure did not deal with this issue. It would not be good practice for an ex-partner without parental responsibility to be provided with information about another child without the parents’ consent. As this issue does not yet seem to have been addressed, my view is it could be dealt with as part of the investigation under the statutory procedure using the Council’s discretion.
• The Council will need to decide whether to exercise discretion to include the complaint about the content of the section 7 reports in the investigation.
• Decisions on supervised contact are made by the courts and are outside the remit of the complaints procedure.

Back to top

Agreed action

66. I recommended that to remedy the injustice caused by the failure to properly consider Miss X’s request to take her complaint to stage 2, the Council should take the following action within one month of the final decision on this complaint:
• accept the complaint for investigation at stage 2 of the statutory complaints procedure;
• appoint an Independent Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person and contact Miss X to start process of investigation;
• consider, in conjunction with the IO if appropriate, whether to include the complaints about disclosure of information at the Initial CPC taking account of my view given in paragraph 65 above, and the complaint about the section 7 report, record the reasons for the decision and inform Miss X;
• if the decision is that the complaint about the data breach is more appropriate for the Data Protection Team, pass the complaint on to them.
67. The Council has agreed to this recommendation, although it feels it would be more appropriate to use the corporate complaints procedure. If Miss X is still dissatisfied after the complaint has completed the statutory complaints process she may make a further complaint to the Ombudsman. She should be aware that the Ombudsman has no power to investigate reports produced for court as part of legal proceedings.

Back to top

Final decision

68. I have found fault in the way the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. I am satisfied with the action it has agreed to take to remedy the injustice caused and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman