Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council considered safeguarding concerns she raised about her child living with their father. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council responded to safeguarding concerns she raised about her child, Y, living with their father. She said her ex-partner was emotionally, financially and psychologically abusing Y.
2. She said the Council’s assessment included information she had shared about being a victim of domestic abuse. She said sharing that information with her ex-partner put her and her children at risk.
3. Ms X wants the Council to apologise for its failings, provide staff training, investigate her ex-partner and assess whether it is safe for Y to live with him.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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 the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Information provided by the Council shows that on receiving Ms X’s concerns, it referred Y to its Early Help Service for an assessment and support. As part of that assessment, the Council spoke to Y, his father, and Y’s school. It also contacted a different Council area who had previously assessed Y’s living arrangements with both parents. It did not identify safeguarding concerns. It developed a plan to support Y with identified areas of need. The Council had sought all relevant information in completing its assessment of Y. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it completed that assessment or decided that the safeguarding threshold was not met to justify our involvement.
9. The Council shared its assessment with Ms X. It confirmed the shared assessments were redacted so personal information was not shared. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest the Council had disclosed personal information about Ms X placing her at risk. If Ms X believes the Council has breached General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), it is appropriate for her to raise her concerns with the Information Commissioner’s Office. If is best placed to deal with complaints around dated protection.
10. The Council told Ms X it could not stop Y living with their father, and she would need to seek legal advice if she had issues around contact. I recognise Ms X wants the Council to investigate her ex-partner, but that is not a recommendation we could make. The Council has correctly directed Ms X to legal advice if she wants to formalise living arrangements for Y. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman