Summary: the Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mr B’s correspondence about inaccuracies in a social work assessment. It properly advised him of his rights under the General Data Protection Regulation. However, it has now agreed to look into his complaint about discrimination.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council used discriminatory language about himself and his family in a social work assessment. He says this caused him distress.
2. Mr B also says the Council refused to accept his complaint, and instead insisted that he and his wife have a meeting with the social work team. They did not want to do that because, in their view, the team was clearly biased against them.
3. Mr B says he wants the assessment removed from the Council’s records, and a new one conducted in its place. He says he wants cultural sensitivity training for the Council’s staff.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to deal with his complaint. I have not investigated his allegations of discrimination. I have provided further information below.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 considered information from Mr B and the Council. Both parties had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

7. In September 2021, Mr B sent a complaint to the Council. This took the form of a list of alleged inaccuracies in a recently-completed social work assessment.
8. The Council told Mr B that it would not accept his complaint at that stage, because he had a meeting booked with someone from the social work team to discuss his dissatisfaction. It said that, if he was still unhappy after the meeting, it may then consider accepting his complaint.
9. Mr B told the Council that he did not want to meet anyone about the complaint, including the social work team manager.
10. The complaints team then wrote to Mr B, and said it would not register his complaint, because it was not actually a complaint – it was a list of requests for a social work record to be amended. It advised him of his rights to request this under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and provided information about how he could do so.
11. Mr B was unhappy with this response, and said he wanted this dealing with as a complaint. The complaints team manager reviewed his request, but did not change the decision, and he then approached the Ombudsman.

My findings

12. Having reviewed the Council’s assessment, as well as the list of alleged inaccuracies Mr B provided to the Council, I have found no fault with the way the Council dealt with his correspondence. The list appears to be of things Mr B wants changing in the assessment (he also says he wants the assessment withdrawing completely). He has a right to request the rectification or deletion of records under the GDPR. The Council was not at fault for advising him of his rights.
13. However, the Council has now agreed to look at Mr B’s complaint about discrimination. This means his Ombudsman complaint is resolved and no further action is required.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mr B’s correspondence about inaccuracies in a social work assessment. It properly advised him of his rights under the GDPR. However, it has now agreed to look into his complaint about discrimination.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman