Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about children’s services’ case recording. We could not add to the previous investigation by the Council, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide information rights complaints, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X, represented by Mrs Y, complained the Council’s records were inaccurate, misleading and contained omissions, including about the Council’s adherence to a court order.
2. Ms X said this caused distress and affected her relationship with her child.
3. Ms X wants the Council to amend its records, tell the child of its amendments, apologise and help promote her relationship with the child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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 Mrs Y and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X previously complained to the Council about matters that it considered under the three-stage statutory children’s complaints process.
9. Stage two and stage three of the children’s statutory complaints process largely upheld Ms X’s complaints, including the Council had not adhered to a court order.
10. I acknowledge that Ms X has only recently seen the records; however, the independent investigating officer who carried out the stage two complaint investigation had sight of all but one of the records and referenced so in the report.
11. As all but one of the records have already been considered as part of the statutory complaints process that largely upheld Ms X’s complaints, there is little that we could add to the investigation the Council has already carried out.
12. Ms X’s complaint is about the Council’s data processing, data protection, and right to rectification duties. Ms X asked for records to be ‘rectified’. This means any factual errors be corrected. The Council considered Ms X’s request and told her its position.
13. Parliament set up the Information Commissioner (ICO) to consider data protection disputes which include ‘right to rectification’ disputes and how the Council stores and processes personal data. The ICO is better placed to consider complaints about information rights. It is reasonable for Ms X to approach them.
14. Additionally, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants. The Council no longer has a social work input with the child. We cannot direct the Council to assign staffing resources to promote the relationship between Ms X and her child.
15. For these reasons, we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not add to the previous investigation by the Council, the ICO is better placed to consider and decide information rights complaints, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman