Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services actions. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s reply nor that we would find fault in the Council’s decision not to change social workers. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider her data protection complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about children services actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
3. 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)
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:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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 Miss X.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. A Court recently decided Miss X’s children’s future care arrangements. Miss X says that a Council social worker lied to the Court. She also says the officer provided third parties with information about her without her consent. She believes the social worker should be replaced.
9. The Council replied in detail in early February 2022. It is unlikely we could add to that reply.
10. The Council considered Miss X’s request for a social worker change but has decided not to. The Council’s social worker is primarily for the children and not for the parents. Its professional decision is that because of their relationship with the children, the social worker should not be replaced. We are unlikely to find fault in that decision for the reasons set out in paragraph three.
11. We cannot investigate the information a Council officer gave a Court.
12. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes disclosing information in error.
13. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. I consider that to be the case here and Miss X should therefore approach the ICO about her concerns about data sharing.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s reply or to find fault in its decision to not change social workers. The ICO is better placed for her data protection complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman