The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council gave inaccurate information to the disclosure and barring service, failed to deal properly with his subject access request, and discriminated against him in a child protection case from 2004. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants, he may reasonably go to the Information Commissioner about data complaints, and there is insufficient injustice to consider other matters.
The complaint
Complaint 1: Mr X complains the Council gave information to the ‘disclosure and barring service’ (DBS) about its child protection involvement with his family from 2004-05 when Mr X was caring for his child. Mr X says the Council’s summary of events contains errors and omissions. Earlier this year the DB Service wrote to Mr X saying it was minded to bar him from working with vulnerable groups. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused distress and harmed his health.
Complaint 2: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with his 2022 subject access request and has not provided all case records. He says the information provided does not give a full picture of the family situation between 2004 and 2006. He wants the Council to place an addendum to the case record correcting the position.
Complaint 3: Mr X complains the Council’s records show staff who dealt with the child protection case from 2004 recorded discriminatory remarks about him and he suffered ‘discrimination by perception’. Mr X says the Council at that time failed to make reasonable adjustments taking account of his medical conditions. Mr X says the Council should apologise for the distress and comments in the records. He says it should acknowledge the harm to his health. He wants the Council to place an addendum on file regarding his health, behaviour, and reasonable adjustments.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and Council.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons: Complaint 1: We cannot achieve what Mr X wants regarding the Council’s information sent to the disclosure and barring service (DBS). The DBS is responsible for its decision and any impact on Mr X. The DBS is not a body within our jurisdiction. Mr X can or could have challenged the DBS decision by appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The grounds for doing so include an error of fact or law.
Complaint 2: It is reasonable for Mr X to go to the Information Commissioner if he wishes to complain about the Council’s response to his subject access request or the handling of his personal information (see paragraph 5 above). The Information Commissioner is the specialist body dealing with data protection.
Complaint 3: There is insufficient evidence of injustice and it would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate what happened (care order 2007).
In February 2008, a children’s statutory complaint stage 3 panel wrote to Mr X confirming it had not upheld his complaints and informing him of his right to complain to the Ombudsman. Mr X’s complaints included the Council having a prejudicial view of him and that it had discriminated against him regarding his gender, health, job situation, carer role, and had failed to properly consider the pressure on him. There is no reason to consider such matters now.
If Mr X was concerned about how the Council dealt with his health needs or communicated with him he could have complained at the time. The duty to make reasonable adjustments is established in the Equality Act 2010.
The Council says there was an Ombudsman’s complaint around 2007 but we do not retain records from that time. We would not investigate matters which we have already considered or which Mr X knew about at the time.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council gave inaccurate information to the disclosure and barring service, failed to deal properly with his subject access request, and discriminated against him in a child protection case from 2004. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants, he may reasonably go to the Information Commissioner about data complaints, and there is insufficient injustice to consider other matters.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman