Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of a social worker in dealing with him. There is not enough claimed injustice to warrant investigation. Other matters would be for Mr X’s daughter to complain of to the Information Commissioner’s Office or the Council before returning to us.

The complaint

1. Mr X said a social worker failed to call him back and that she conducted a home visit badly. He said another social work turned up unannounced and failed to wear a face covering or socially distance. He said an assessment of his grandchild was inaccurate and that the Council gave his daughter’s ex-partner her home address.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
4. Mr X has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Regarding matters that affected Mr X, the accepted failure of a social worker to call Mr X back, and any failure of the social worker to socially distance or wear a face covering did not create sufficient injustice to warrant an investigation by us.
6. Although Mr X maintains he has his daughter’s consent to complain on her behalf, he has not provided this. The Council’s responses to his complaint were addressed solely to him. However, even if we had his daughter’s consent to consider matters that affected her or Mr X’s grandchild, investigation would not be warranted by the claimed fault, as the social worker’s conduct in speaking to the child appears a matter of professional judgement.
7. Regarding the social worker’s assessment, Mr X’s daughter would need to have first complained to the Council about faults in that assessment, and to have completed its complaint process before approaching us. He provided a copy of a response he made to the assessment. However, this was not formulated as a complaint, and it was not clear if his daughter had consented to a complaint based on this response. If she has already complained to the Council about the assessment, either singly or jointly with Mr X, he, with her consent, could act as her representative in a complaint to us. If they have done so, they would be welcome to bring the matter of the assessment back to us.
8. Establishing if there has been a data breach is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office, not us. Mr X’s daughter, or Mr X acting with her consent, could return to us if the ICO finds a breach. We might then consider a remedy for any injustice caused by any confirmed breach.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:

• Investigation is not warranted by the claimed injustice in the matters of calling back or social distancing; or by the claimed fault in the matter of the social worker’s actions in speaking to the child;
• We do not have parental consent for a complaint about what happened to the child or Mr X’s daughter;
• Mr X’s daughter should first approach the ICO about the alleged data breach; and
• The complaint about the assessment needs first to have completed the Council’s complaint process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman