Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council contacting him in error about a matter. While he found this distressing, the Council’s apology is sufficient for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council breached a previous agreement with him by its legal department accepting he was not the parent of a child. He said the Council failed to keep personal data accurate and this caused him significant distress by bringing back symptoms of an earlier mental health crisis. He said this was misconduct by the solicitor.

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 a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, 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 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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

How I considered this complaint

8. I read Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response to it. As the Council accepted it contacted Mr X in error, there was no reason to redirect him to the Information Commissioner, though he remains free to contact the ICO. I gave Mr X an opportunity to comment on a draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. A social worker contacted Mr X about a child, mistakenly believing he was the child’s biological father. The Council had previously accepted he was not the child’s father and had recorded this.
10. Mr X said the social worker disregarded the records, causing him significant distress. The Council said the social worker did not see the relevant record and was unaware that Mr X was not the child’s father. It accepted it was at fault, apologised for this and told Mr X it would take steps to prevent a repeat.
11. Sight of the records would have made it clear to the social worker that Mr X was not the child’s father. To then contact him about the child would have been pointless. So, it is unlikely the social worker chose to disregard the record and create unnecessary work for herself. It is more likely she was not aware of it. We have no authority to consider misconduct by any Council officer. That would be a personnel matter.
12. Mr X found the social worker’s actions distressing as they brought back previous traumatic events. However, the Council apologised to Mr X promptly and before he contacted us. The social worker also apologised personally, which goes beyond what we would recommend, as we have no authority to consider personnel matters. The Council’s apology is sufficient for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council apology is sufficient remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman