Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a report written about Ms X by the Council, which the Council accepts contained some factual inaccuracy. Ms X has a right that it would be reasonable to use to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office about any remaining factual inaccuracy. It is speculative whether there will be any further court action regarding the contact and residence arrangements of her children, so there is not sufficient injustice to warrant investigation by us. Were the report to be adduced in court, it would be reasonable for Ms X to challenge its content there.

The complaint

1. Ms X said the Council wrote an inadequate report about her that was biased and contained inaccuracies. She said her former partner could use this in any future court action that might take place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and gave her the opportunity to respond to a draft of this decision.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The complaint concerns the content of a report about Ms X and her children. The report’s purpose was to assess parenting. In responding to her complaint, the Council accepted some of the content of the report was factually inaccurate. It said it had told her former partner of this, too. If Ms X finds there are still inaccuracies not acknowledged by the Council, she has a right it would be reasonable to use to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to request rectification.
7. Ms X is concerned her former partner may nonetheless use the report in any future court action. Logically, this would apply to any court action that requires a view of the relative suitability of the parents to care for and have contact with their children. However, this is speculative, and in the absence of court action concerning the contact and residence arrangements for Ms X’s children, there is no injustice that would warrant investigation by us. Should the report be raised in any future court action, it would be reasonable for Ms X to refer to the Council’s written acceptance of some factual inaccuracies. It would also be reasonable for Ms X to challenge any opinions of the Council that she disagrees with in any court action.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:

• There is not enough injustice to warrant investigation in the absence of any new court action regarding the residence and contact arrangements for her children initiated by Ms X’s former partner;
• Ms X has a right to approach the ICO that it would be reasonable to use about any remaining factual inaccuracies in the report; and
• Should Ms X’s former partner raise the report in any future court action, it would be reasonable for Ms X to refer to the Council’s written acceptance of some factual inaccuracies, and to challenge any opinions of the Council there.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman