Nottinghamshire County Council (19 001 778)

Category : Other Categories > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 09 Sep 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms D complains that the Council gave inaccurate and libellous information about her to the NHS mental health service. The Ombudsman has found fault causing distress. The Council has already taken action to remedy that injustice.

The complaint

  1. Ms D complains that the Council gave inaccurate and libellous information about her to the NHS mental health service. She says as a result she cannot access mental health services.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we would find fault, or
  • it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
  • we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

  1. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Ms D about her complaint and considered the information she provided to the Ombudsman.
  2. I sent Ms D and the Council my draft decision and considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need. A child in need may be assessed under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. This “Child and Family Assessment” should be completed within 45 working days from the date of the referral. Following the assessment, if the council decides to provide services, a child in need plan should be developed.

Child protection

  1. If a local authority receives a report of concern about a child it must decide whether there is reasonable cause to suspect that the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. If so, the council must decide whether to initiate safeguarding enquiries under section 47 of the Act.
  2. A Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) is a meeting where information is shared between representatives of local police, probation, health, child protection, housing practitioners, Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs) and others about high risk domestic abuse cases. The victim does not attend the meeting but is represented by an IDVA. Referrals can be made to a MARAC from any agency.

What happened

  1. In 2018 Ms D used NHS mental health services. When she was discharged, she received a discharge summary which contained statements that appeared to have originated from the Council. These were that Ms D:
      1. Had claimed top level PIP for her son fraudulently after he had left home
      2. Had been “felt to be the main perpetrator” in a MARAC meeting
      3. “Also uses the name Ms Y [a character from a film]”
      4. Had “tried to manipulate services historically”
  2. Ms D complained to the Council in January 2019 that the statements were inaccurate and amounted to slander and defamation of character.
  3. The Council started a child and family assessment of Ms D’s children. This ended in February 2019 after Ms D withdrew her consent. She said she had consented to a section 17 needs assessment, not a safeguarding assessment.
  4. The Council responded to Ms D’s complaint in March 2019. It said it had not shared any information about Ms D with the NHS as it only became involved after Ms D referred herself to the mental health team. It acknowledged that the recent child and family assessment was not full or comprehensive; this was because it had not been completed. The Council said:
      1. It had not been aware Ms D had discussed the PIP with the DWP and that it had been frozen. The Council apologised for any offence caused.
      2. The MARAC meeting had discussed Ms D as a potential perpetrator in relation to her not allowing her son to access support services and financial support.
      3. Whilst this was factually accurate, the Council apologised if the comment had caused Ms D offence.
      4. This comment had originated from Charity 1, not the Council.
  5. Ms D was dissatisfied with the response and asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said the Council:
    • was wrong that she had self-referred to mental health services.
    • had failed to provide support or to carry out a section 17 assessment of her children.
    • had wrongly stated in the assessment that her children had been subject to multiple child protection plans.
  6. The Council’s final response to Ms D’s complaint accepted there had been inaccuracies about the mental health service referral and the number of child protection plans. It also acknowledged that the PIP claim had been reinstated. The Council apologised. It had amended the assessment and added a note to Ms D’s records.
  7. The Council said it had closed the social care cases for Ms D’s children as Ms D had withdrawn her consent to the child and family assessment; there was insufficient information to make recommendations for any support; Ms D had said she did not want any involvement from social care; and there were no safeguarding concerns.
  8. Ms D complained to the Ombudsman. She sent a letter from Charity 1 which denied it had made the comment about her use of services.

My findings

  1. The Council has accepted that some of its statements were inaccurate or caused offence to Ms D. This was fault and has caused distress to Ms D.
  2. The Council has apologised and amended its records. These are actions I would expect it to take and are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedying injustice caused by fault. I am satisfied that the actions the Council has taken were a proportionate and appropriate response to Ms D’s complaint.
  3. There is a dispute about where the comment about Ms D’s historical use of services came from. It is unlikely that further investigation by the Ombudsman on this point would be able to establish the origin. In addition, even if I was able to determine that a Council officer made the comment, and whilst accepting that Ms D disagrees with it, I could not find that an officer’s opinion was maladministration. If I did find fault on this point, it is likely I would ask the Council to apologise and amend its records, which it has already done.
  4. Ms D says the Council’s comments mean she is now unable to access NHS mental health services. I have seen no evidence of this and it is unlikely further investigation could determine she was denied mental health services as a result of the Council’s actions.
  5. Ms D wants the Ombudsman to require the Council to carry out a section 17 needs assessment of her children, but this would not be a remedy for the injustice caused by the fault identified in this complaint. In addition, the Ombudsman cannot tell a Council how to carry out a child and family assessment. Nor could I tell it not to carry out safeguarding enquiries if it thought a child was at risk of harm. So even if I investigated and found fault, I could not achieve the outcome Ms D is seeking.
  6. Ms D says she wants the Ombudsman to stop the Council sharing false information about her. She says the Information Commissioner advised her to ask the Council to place restrictions on the processing of her data by social care, but the Council has refused as it must record all contact with families. The Ombudsman has no power to tell the Council what information to record or pass on to other services. I could only ask it to amend factually inaccurate records; it has already done this. Ms D may wish to refer to the Information Commissioner if she has a complaint about data protection.
  7. Ms D says the Council has defamed her. However, this is a legal matter and it would be for the courts and not the Ombudsman to determine whether this was the case.
  8. We may decide not to continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault, or if we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. I have therefore discontinued my investigation into the comment about Ms D’s historical use of services.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Ms D. I am satisfied the Council has taken action to remedy that injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings