Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with child protection matters. This is because some elements are late, and because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with other matters.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council dealt with child protection matters after it received a safeguarding referral raising concerns about one of her children in 2021. Miss X says she did not consent for a child in need plan and that the Council has incorrectly recorded and shared information about her and her family.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• 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 normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to seek her consent before opening a child in need plan. This is because this element of her complaint is made late. I am satisfied that Miss X was aware of the Council’s actions in regard to this matter in 2021, and I see no good reason why she could not have complained about this to the Council and then the Ombudsman at the time.
8. Miss X’s complaint about the recording and sharing of information only came about after she recently received a response to a Subject Access Request ,so I am satisfied that this element of her complaint was made in time.
9. The Council has said that the only record it has of sharing information was during the child protection strategy meeting and that it has no record of it sharing information with other agencies in the way Miss X describes. The Council did accept that it should be more careful about how third party information should be shared in assessments but said it could not retrospectively amend the assessment concerning Miss X’s child.
10. I will not investigate this element of Miss X’s complaint. The purpose of strategy meetings is for council’s and partner agencies to share information in order to assess any risk a child may face. Therefore, we would not find fault with the Council for how information was shared during the strategy meeting for Miss X’s child.
11. The Council accepts that more care should have been taken in regard to the inclusion of third party information in her child’s assessment. It has shared this learning with the relevant team which is an appropriate response and for this reason further investigation by the Ombudsman would not add to the Council’s investigation.
12. Miss X believes that the Council has incorrectly shared information and is holding inaccurate information about her family. We will not investigate these points because it would be reasonable for Miss X to raise these matters with the Information Commissioner who it better placed to investigate complaints about data protection matters such as these.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because her complaint is made late and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider some of the matters raised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman