Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a children services’ safeguarding referral consideration. It is unlikely we would find Council fault which has directly caused a significant injustice to Miss X. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider Miss X’s data protection complaints.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council’s children services team falsely investigated her and held the case open for longer than necessary.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the Council received a safeguarding referral in March 2024 about herself. She says she does not know the detail. She says she has not been told why there was an investigation and the outcome. She complained to the Council. In April 2025 in reply it told Miss X she needed to contact her employers.
6. The Council says it closed the case in June 2024 as it was unsubstantiated. It says an officer from another body agreed to communicate with Miss X.
7. The Council has a duty to consider all safeguarding referrals it receives. Given the background circumstances Miss X describes, including the referral was made by a health professional, we are unlikely to find fault in it opening a case. This was comparatively swiftly dealt with. We are unlikely to find fault in any poor communication about the investigation as the procedures mean it was not the Council’s responsibility to communicate with her.
8. Also, we are unlikely to find there is any direct significant injustice caused by the comparatively swift consideration of a case which is then closed as unsubstantiated.
9. Miss X has the right to ask records are ‘rectified’. This means any factual faults are corrected. If the Council refuses to do so, she can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Miss X can also request the information the Council hold about her. This is called a ‘subject access request’ (SAR). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ and ‘SAR’ disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.
10. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. I consider that to be the case here and Miss X should therefore approach the ICO about her concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault or any direct significant injustice by any Council fault. The ICO is better placed to consider data protection complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman