Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr X’s family. This is because we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his complaint about safeguarding failures and data protection matters. He said this has caused him stress and has damaged his health. He would like the Council to apologise, ensure his records are corrected, provide compensation and put measures in place to prevent recurrence.

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, or

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution.
7. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
8. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
9. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel.
10. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We will not do so in this case.
11. I have considered the documents from Mr X’s complaint and I note that each part of the complaint was considered and addressed by the Council. The investigator at stage 2 made references to case records and relevant guidance. Parts of the complaint were upheld, and therefore require no additional scrutiny. On the points of the complaint that were not upheld, the findings do not appear obviously unreasonable given the evidence summarised within the report.
12. Because of this, it is unlikely that I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said. If I were to reinvestigate the complaint, it is unlikely that this would lead to a substantially different outcome for Mr X.
13. Mr X complained to the Council about his report of data protection breaches and he also made a Subject Access Request (SAR). The stage two and three complaint responses did not consider these matters because the Council had responded to them through a separate process.
14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about data protection breaches and the Council’s response to his SAR. This is because the Information Commissioner is another body better placed to consider these matters.
15. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his complaint because it did not provide a stage 1 response to his concerns. He also complained the complaints process was compromised because the Council made the final decision.
16. In response to enquiries, the Council confirmed that a manager in the Children’s Social Care Team had spent a number of months liaising with Mr X directly to try and resolve his concerns. The Council considered a resolution would not be achieved through an internal stage 1 complaint response and therefore started the complaint at the independent stage 2 of the process.
17. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council tried to resolve Mr X’s concerns with a local resolution before it progressed to stage 2 of the complaints process. The Council completed the statutory complaints procedure including a stage two investigation which was overseen by an Independent Person, and a stage three review by an independent panel. The Council provided an adjudication response which is in line with the statutory complaints procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman