Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end its involvement with his family following an assessment because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Mr X’s complaint about the content of the assessment is better suited to the Information Commissioner’s Office. We will not investigate the Council’s complaints handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement with his family following a Child and Family assessment. Mr X said the Council:
1. failed to put adequate safeguarding measures in place after he had raised concerns and ended its involvement prematurely;
2. included factually inaccurate information in the assessment; and
3. failed to properly consider his complaint.
2. Mr X said these matters caused him distress and uncertainty. Mr X wanted the Council to review his complaint, explain its safeguarding decisions and remove the factual inaccuracies from its assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Failure to safeguard

6. Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure adequate safeguards were in place following concerns raised regarding his child.
7. The Council conducted a Child and Family assessment to consider the issues raised. It offered some additional support, but this was declined. The case was therefore closed.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
9. We will not investigate this matter. The Council addressed the concerns raised and explained its decision-making in the Child and Family assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Incorrect information

10. Mr X complained the Council’s Child and Family assessment included factual inaccuracies and unverified allegations. Mr X wanted the assessment to be amended. Mr X is therefore asking for a “right to rectification”.
11. Parliament created the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as the specialist body responsible for considering disputes about personal data and the accuracy of information held by public bodies. The ICO has specific powers and expertise to consider whether information should be corrected, amended or retained. It is therefore better placed that the Ombudsman to consider this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.

Complaints handling

12. Mr X said the Council failed to properly consider his complaint.
13. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate most of Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation, and there are other bodies better placed to consider some matters. We will not investigate the Council’s complaints handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman