Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to keep him informed of matters involving his children. Our involvement could not add to the response and apology the Council has already provided. Another body is better placed to consider Mr X’s concerns about the way the Council processed his request for personal data.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to inform him of an incident involving his children in 2022 and to include him in any subsequent assessment. Mr X also complains about the way the Council has processed his subject access requests for personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation. He wants assurances from the Council that it will now keep him informed.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has met with Mr X and provided a detailed response to his complaint under stage one of its complaint procedure. The Council accepted although Mr X may have been estranged and out of the country when the incident occurred, it could have done more to inform him and involve him in its subsequent assessment. The Council’s response also explained its rationale for not disclosing all the information it holds about Mr X’s children and their mother. The Council confirmed there had been no further safeguarding concerns raised about the children since it concluded its involvement with the family in 2022.
7. The Council declined to investigate and respond to Mr X’s escalated complaint because it considered there was nothing more it could add to its stage one complaint response. The Council’s published complaints procedure allows it to take this action if appropriate.
8. Further investigation of Mr X’s complaints by us is unlikely to add to the Council’s responses. While Mr X may not accept the Council’s apology or believe its assurances to keep him informed in future, this is not evidence of fault by the Council. It is not a good use of public money for us to investigate a matter where there is unlikely to be further evidence available that would lead us to reach a different outcome or conclusions. In this case, the question for us is whether our intervention would add anything to the Council’s investigation and there is nothing to suggest that it would do so.
9. Mr X’s concerns about the information the Council has disclosed following his subject access request is a matter the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed than us to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s response. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider his concerns about the processing of his subject access request.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman