Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker disclosing records to Miss X’s family. There is another agency better placed than us to consider if there has been a data breach. We will not investigate the actions of the Council leading to the removal of Miss X’s children as the matters complained of are historic. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider them now. It is also likely that these matters would not be separable from matters before a court, as a court order would have been required to remove Miss X’s children. As such we would be legally barred from investigating them.

The complaint

1. Miss X said a social worker showed her family her social care records, leading to them behaving differently towards her. She said the records were wrong, and the Council acted with fault in dealing with her in removing her children.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The complaint primarily concerns an alleged data breach by a social worker in wrongly disclosing records about Miss X to her family. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed than us to consider this matter. This because it has powers we lack. It can decide there has been a breach, impose penalties on organisations and persons responsible, and require rectification of incorrect data.
8. Matters relating to the Council’s actions before 2020 are historic. Miss X would have been aware of them at the time and could have approached us much sooner. However, even if that were not so, these matters relate to decisions by the Council about her family that were likely to have led to court action. This is because the removal of children for anything more than a brief period or when the parent does not accept this requires a court order. We cannot investigate matters closely related to court action.
9. The only exception to the above is a claimed incident dating from 2023 when Miss X says someone shot an air-rifle at her car. This is a criminal matter, not a matter for the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:

• The ICO is better placed than us to consider an alleged data breach;
• Matters dating from before 2023 are late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider them now;
• We cannot investigate matters relating to the removal of Miss X’s children as they would be closely related to matters subject to a court action; and
• Alleged criminal damage in 2023 is a criminal matter for the police, not the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman