Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her complaints. This is because Ms X is yet to complete the statutory complaints procedure and any injustice she may have suffered at this stage is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Also, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider part of this complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council mishandled her statutory children’s services complaint. She says it caused avoidable delays at stage 1 by splitting and merging her complaint and is delaying stage 2 of the process. She says the Council has appointed the Investigating Officer (IO) and the Independent Person (IP) yet states the Stage 2 does not formally start until the Statement of Complaint (SOC) is agreed. Ms X says the Council repeatedly stated that staffing pressures were the reason for the delay.
2. Ms X complains the Council disclosed a Section 17 assessment which she states contains factual errors and sensitive personal information to her children’s father. She says the situation has caused her emotional distress, wasted time and anxiety about continuing safeguarding concerns for her and her child.
3. Ms X wants the Council to apologise and provide a timeline for a response to her complaints. She also wants it to correct and reissue the section 17 assessment, complete a risk assessment about the data disclosure, provide a suitable financial remedy and review its complaint handling practices.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Under the statutory children's services complaints procedure, councils have up to 65 working days to complete a Stage 2 investigation where the complaint is complex.
9. Ms X escalated her complaint to Stage 2 on 12 May 2026. The 65 working day period expires on 12 August 2026. The Stage 2 investigation remains within the statutory timescale, and the Council should be permitted to complete its procedure before we consider intervening.
10. If the Council does not complete Stage 2 within the statutory timescale, or within a reasonable period thereafter, Ms X may make a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman for consideration.
11. The Council first split Ms X's complaint into two separate complaints against her wishes, before later combining them into a single statutory complaint. While this may have caused some confusion, I do not consider any resulting injustice significant enough to justify an investigation. The Council decided to consider the concerns under the statutory children's services complaints procedure, which was the outcome Ms X sought.
12. Ms X complained the Council disclosed a Section 17 assessment containing inaccurate and personal information. The Council reviewed the disclosure and decided that no unauthorised personal data breach occurred.
13. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether a breach of data protection law has occurred. If Ms X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of her personal information or the accuracy of information it holds, she may complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is the appropriate body and is better placed to consider complaints about these matters.
14. Ms X complained about the Council’s general handling of her complaints. We do not normally investigate complaint handling as a stand-alone issue where we are not investigating the underlying matter. Any injustice Ms X experienced at this stage is not significant enough to justify a separate investigation and it would not be a good use of public resources for us to investigate this matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because any injustice arising from the ongoing statutory complaints process is not significant enough to justify our involvement at this stage. Also, the Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider concerns about the disclosure and accuracy of personal information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman