Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a Council officer misled the complainant about the use to which the information he shared would be put, and failed to set out the possible outcomes of the process in which he was involved. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything significant or lead to a substantially different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that a Council officer who interviewed him misled him about the use to which the information he shared would be put, and failed to set out the possible outcomes of the process in which he was involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is a young person. He complains about the Council’s actions in response to a referral the police made to the Council when he was 14. The police referral considered an offence committed by Mr X, which was deemed to be suitable for an out of court disposal.
6. As part of the process, which was led by the Council, a Council officer met with Mr X and his parents. She also met with Mr X alone. Mr X says the officer led him to believe that their discussion was in confidence. He complains that the content was in fact shared with the panel the Council convened to consider the out of court disposal, which included a representative of the police. He complains that he was effectively misled into providing information without the knowledge that it would be shared and without the presence of an adult or legal representative.
7. Mr X further complains that he was not given information which should have been shared with him, and that this omission disadvantaged him. Specifically, he says a possible outcome of the process was that he would not need to disclose the offence to a youth organisation in which he was active. He argues that, as a result, his father was compelled to contact the organisation to attempt to manage and mitigate the impact of disclosure. However, the organisation’s disproportionate response has led him to withdraw from it with no prospect of re-engaging.
8. Mr X attributes the nature of the organisation’s response to the disclosures he made in part to the actions of Council officers who advised it to consider all of the information on the offence, rather than a summary report. He says the process actually concluded that he could return to normal activities without restrictions. By that time, it was too late for that to be an option.
9. Mr X says the Council should apologise to him directly for the failings on its part. It should also accept that its processes are flawed, and that this has had a negative impact on his wellbeing and his ability to move on.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely investigation would add anything significant to the responses Mr X’s father has received on the matter, or that investigation would lead to a substantially different outcome.
11. As the Council has set out, it is not unusual for officers to speak with young people alone, and I will not criticise it for doing so in this case. However, the Council has accepted that Mr X was not given information he should have been given. Specifically, it should have been made clear to him that the information he gave would be shared with the panel, and information about the range of possible outcomes should have been shared.
12. The Council has apologised for this failure on its part. I attach no significance to the fact that the Council apologised to Mr X’s father, who was pursuing a complaint, rather than to him. In addition to the apology, the Council has set out its intention to introduce a checklist for its officers to use in future cases, to ensure all necessary information is shared. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would conclude that this constitutes a reasonable remedy for the issue identified. That being the case, investigation is not warranted.
13. Even if we were to find fault, we would not be able to attribute the injustice Mr X claims directly to it. We cannot say that information shared by Mr X in the discussion with the officer led the multi-agency panel to reach conclusions it would not otherwise have reached. It is not therefore possible to find that there is a causal link between the fault and a negative outcome.
14. Turning to the sharing of information with the youth organisation, it is again not possible to say the Council’s actions directly caused a specific outcome. It is not for the Ombudsman to criticise the decision of officers that information should or should not be shared, or to intervene to substitute an alternative view. If Mr X believes the sharing amounts to fault, he may bring the matter to the attention of the Information Commissioner, who is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider it.
15. For us to say the Council’s actions caused Mr X a demonstrable injustice, we would have to say the youth organisation’s actions were disproportionate, not just in terms of the information it had, but in all the facts of the case. The organisation is not a body within our jurisdiction, and we can make no comment on its safeguarding procedures or how it has applied them here. There are therefore no grounds for us to intervene,

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything significant or lead to a substantially different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman