Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged safeguarding failure by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement. Matters concerning data protection would be better raised with the Information Commissioner as they have powers to order disclosure and to impose penalties for deletion that we lack.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed in its safeguarding role, deleted records, delayed responding to a data access request, and failed to deal properly with his complaint.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
5. 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.

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. Mr X’s complaint concerns the Council’s responses to matters involving his child at school. While the internal actions of a school are not matters for the Council, it has duty to consider a referral that suggests a child may have been harmed by the actions of persons in a school.
9. At my request, the Council supplied a confidential copy of a document it received from Ofsted after a complaint by Mr X. It also supplied a confidential copy of its consideration of the matter, which addressed various matters and was sufficient to allow it to reach a decision. That it did not see the need for further action was a decision it could take. If we were to investigate, it is unlikely we would find the Council failed to act properly in reaching its decision. That Mr X maintains his child was harmed at the school is not of itself evidence of fault by the Council.
10. The remaining matters relate to data processing and complaint handling. The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider the former as it has powers to order disclosure, and to impose penalties for non-disclosure and deletion. We lack those powers. Where we are not investigating the substantive matters of a complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to consider how a body dealt with the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s safeguarding actions to warrant investigation;
• Another body is better placed to consider data processing matters; and
• It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the matter complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman