Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns, recording of information, and complaint handling. The main issues relate to professional safeguarding judgement, where there is not enough evidence of administrative fault. Complaints about data protection are best suited for the Information Commissioner’s Office. Where limited fault was identified, the Council has already taken proportionate remedial action. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the actions and conduct of Children’s Services. She says the Council mishandled safeguarding concerns, recorded and used inaccurate information about her mental health and alleged offending, and handled her complaints poorly. She also alleges data protection breaches. Miss X seeks compensation, accountability, and service improvements, including better staff training on mental health awareness.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
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 the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X complains about the Council’s response to safeguarding referrals, the recording and use of information obtained from partner agencies, its complaint handling, and alleged data protection breaches.
9. The Council acted following a multi-agency strategy discussion involving police, health and other agencies. The decision to progress safeguarding enquiries was based on historical risk and information received from those agencies. The Council was entitled to take this action without parental consent. These matters involve professional judgement, and there is insufficient evidence the Council failed to follow safeguarding procedures or acted outside the legal framework. We will not investigate because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s safeguarding decision-making.
10. Miss X disputes the accuracy of information recorded about her mental health and alleged offending. The Council explained this information originated from partner agencies as part of its safeguarding enquiries. The Council partially upheld this aspect of Miss X’s stage two complaint. The Council agreed to record the complainant’s disagreement and remind staff to clearly identify the origin of information in assessments. We will not investigate this element of Miss X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.
11. Miss X also raised concerns about data protection and the use and sharing of personal information. The Council found no evidence of a data breach and appropriately signposted the complainant to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council has committed a data breach. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider complaints about data protection.
12. The Council accepted fault in not ensuring that learning from a previous Ombudsman decision was visible on the case records held for Miss X’s children. To remedy this, the Council apologised, corrected the children’s records to include the previous Ombudsman findings. The Council has offered Miss X a small payment to recognise the distress caused by its the failure to record learning from a previous Ombudsman decision. This was a proportionate response and is in line with our guidance. We will not investigate this complaint further because we are unlikely to achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making. We could achieve nothing more on matters where the Council has already apologised and appropriately remedied the injustice caused to Miss X by its faults. The Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to consider Miss X’s complaints about alleged data breaches.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman