Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a ‘child in need’ plan for his child. This is mainly because we could not add significantly to the previous investigation carried out by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
   
   a) put his child on a child in need plan without his or his partner’s permission;

b) did not share information about the plan with him or his partner;

c) did not close the child’s social care case when it said it would;

d) said his partner had a diagnosis of autism without any evidence; and

e) ignored court orders.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

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))
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. On point a), the Council said Mr X’s partner briefly agreed to the child in need plan. Mr X did not give his consent, and his partner then withdrew her consent, so the Council did not proceed with the plan.
9. It appears the Council’s actions were related to Mr X’s partner initially agreeing to the plan. The Council then did not continue with the plan once the partner withdrew consent. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or of significant injustice to Mr X to warrant further investigation on this point.
10. On point b), the Council said it should have shared the child and family assessment and the proposed child in need plan with Mr X and his partner and apologised for not doing so.
11. We recognise the Council should have shared these documents with Mr X, which would have meant he could make fully informed decisions. However, the Council has apologised and the plan was not implemented, so we could not achieve significantly more on this point.
12. On point c), the Council has said it did not close the child’s case due to an error on its computer system. It has apologised to Mr X and has closed the case. We appreciate Mr X’s concern that the Council leaving the case open could have meant it shared incorrect information with other organisations. However, this did not happen and so there is not enough evidence of significant enough injustice to Mr X to warrant further investigation.
13. On point d), any potential injustice caused by the Council’s alleged actions would be in relation to Mr X’s partner. She has not complained to us. There is not enough evidence of significant injustice to Mr X to warrant further investigation.
14. It is also more appropriate for the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider matters about the partner’s personal data.
15. On point e), I cannot investigate this matter as it relates to matters that have or reasonably could have been considered in court. There is not enough evidence of injustice to Mr X for us to consider investigating any parts of this point we could separate from the matters considered in court.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is mainly because we could not add significantly to the previous investigation carried out by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman