Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because the complaint is late, we could not add to the Council’s investigation and there is another body better placed to consider her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
• removed her child, Y, and placed them into foster care without her consent; and
• shared sensitive information about her to other professionals and former partners without her consent.

Mrs X said the matter caused her significant anxiety and distress. She wants the Council to reconsider its remedy it offered to her following its investigation into her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2018, the Council’s children’s services removed Mrs X’s child, Y and placed them in a foster care placement. Mrs X said the Council did not gain consent from her before doing so.
7. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council said in line with best practice, it should have gained written consent from Mrs X but was unable to do so and so gained verbal consent instead, which was in line with relevant guidance. It apologised to Mrs X however, for not following best practice.
8. In 2019, the Council shared sensitive medical information about Mrs X with CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services). CAMHS then shared this information with a children’s charity.
9. The Council accepted it should not have shared Mrs X’s medical information with CAMHS. It said it had addressed the matter internally and shared concerns with CAMHS. The Council apologised to Mrs X and offered her a symbolic remedy of £1000.
10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because the matters Mrs X complains of happened more than 12 months ago and so paragraph two applies.
11. In any case, we could not add to the Council’s investigation. It recognised where it went wrong and apologised to Mrs X which was appropriate. The remedy the Council offered to Mrs X for the breach in data is more than what we would recommend, in line with our Guidance on Remedies. Furthermore, the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) is a better body to consider complaints about data breaches. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to direct her complaint to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is late, we could not add to the Council’s investigation and there is another body better placed to consider her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman