Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to respond to Mr B’s complaint about the information used in a children’s social care assessment. It has now agreed to respond to his complaint and offer him a small, symbolic financial remedy to recognise his injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council completed a children’s social care assessment and, in doing so, used information from an old, inaccurate report from 2015. He says the Council accepted that the old report was inaccurate at the time but failed to take effective action to prevent it being used to influence future decision-making.
2. Mr B also complains that the Council failed to respond to his complaint about this matter.

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
5. 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

6. I considered information from Mr B and the Council. Both 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. Mr B made his complaint to the Council in late July 2022. The Council initially dealt with it as a data protection issue and referred it to its data protection officer.
8. Mr B was unhappy with this approach. He maintained that his complaint was about the actions of children’s social care, and did not solely relate to data issues. He said a new assessment had been completed which was significantly influenced by an old report from 2015 – a report which the Council itself had accepted was “not credible or factually based”. He said the Council had failed to do what it had said it would do in 2015, and he was now suffering the consequences.
9. Two months later (in early November), the Council accepted Mr B’s complaint and agreed to respond within a fortnight. It said it would not look at issues from 2015. Mr B said he did not want it to, although the only satisfactory outcome to his complaint would be the removal of the old report (because other actions had proven ineffective).
10. Later in November – and after the deadline the Council had set – Mr B exchanged some emails with the Council’s Chief Executive. The Chief Executive told him children’s social care were preparing a response and would consider meeting with Mr B. Mr B was very unhappy with the delay and said he wanted a meeting.
11. Mr B contacted the Council twice further in December and, having had no further response, approached the Ombudsman.
12. The Council says a service manager did respond to Mr B, but has now left and it has no record of the response. Mr B denies this.
13. The Council also says it believes Mr B’s complaint is a repeat of the complaint he made in 2015 and therefore has already been investigated.

My findings

14. As Mr B’s complaint specifically relates to how the Council used information about him in a recent assessment, I do not agree with the Council’s view that this is a repeat of his 2015 complaint. He certainly refers extensively to events from 2015. But it appears that, in his view, the old information has been used recently.
15. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied – on the balance of probabilities – that the Council agreed to respond to Mr B’s complaint but then failed to do so. My view is based on the lack of evidence that a response was provided.
16. This was fault by the Council. Before any investigation is considered by the Ombudsman, it would now be reasonable for the Council to respond to Mr B under the relevant procedure and to tell him how to escalate his complaint if he is dissatisfied.
17. If Mr B remains dissatisfied having completed the Council’s complaints procedure in full, then he can approach us again.

Back to top

Agreed actions

18. Within two weeks, the Council has agreed to respond to the complaint Mr B made in late July 2022.
19. Within six weeks, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £100 to Mr B to recognise the frustration and inconvenience he likely experienced because of its failure to respond to his complaint.
20. The Council has agreed to provide us with evidence it has completed these actions.

Back to top

Final decision

21. The Council was at fault for failing to respond to Mr B’s complaint about the information used in a children’s social care assessment. The agreed actions remedy Mr B’s injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman