The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr S complained about the way the Council prepared a child and family assessment report and the information it included. He said the Council had been biased against him. Mr S also complained the Council sent its response to his complaint to the wrong person. The Council has accepted some failings and offered to add an addendum to its report, asked Mr S to participate in a further assessment, and offered £300 for delays in its complaints handling. We have discontinued our investigation on the basis that any further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve what Mr S wants. We will not investigate any data breach issues as the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to address them.
The complaint
Mr S is complaining the Council was biased in its assessment of his children’s case. He complains that relevant information has not been included in the child and family assessment (“CAF”) report. Mr S says this has caused incorrect decisions to be made, including his contact with his children being impacted. Mr S wants the Council to retract its report.
Mr S also complains about the Council sending its stage one response to his complaint to his children’s mother which, he says, was a data breach.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information or personal data breaches, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke with Mr S and have considered the information and documents provided by him and by the Council.
Mr S and the Council have had the opportunity to provide their comments, which have been considered before this final decision was made.
What I found
What happened Mr S has a court order which states his two daughters should live with him. In March 2022, the Council prepared a CAF report. Mr S is unhappy with the information the Council chose to include in its report. He says the Council were biased against him.
Mr S says the March 2022 report led to one of his daughter’s moving out of his home and in with her mother. He says an incident which was inaccurately included in the report has been used by the children’s mother to justify her non-compliance with the court order. He says other bodies, such as the children’s school seem to have formed an unfair opinion of him based on the report.
The Council said it had followed its process in producing its report but accepted that Mr S had not been asked for his opinion on all aspects of the report. It asked Mr S to provide his own wording so it could add an addendum to the report. It also offered an apology and payment of £300 in recognition of issues with its complaints handling. The Council also invited Mr S to participate in a new assessment it was carrying out in 2023.
Mr S did not provide his wording for an addendum. He says he had lost confidence in the Council by this point. He also says that an addendum would not achieve anything as he does not feel that anyone would read it.
Mr S confirms that two further CAF reports have been issued since the March 2022 report. Mr S chose not to be involved in the assessment for these reports. He says the two new reports do not mention the issues he feels were inaccurate in the March 2022 report. He is content with the two new reports but does not feel that they have resolved his issues with the March 2022 report.
Mr S says the only way to rectify the situation is for the Council to retract the March 2022 report. He says other bodies will always be able to refer back to a historical report even if a new report has been issued.
The Council accepts it sent its stage one complaint response to Mr S’s former partner and has apologised for this. We would not investigate this issue as it is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Analysis As a publicly funded organisation, the ombudsman service must consider the value that can be added by continuing an investigation. Where we cannot achieve an outcome different to what the Council has already offered, we would not continue our investigation.
The Council has offered to add an addendum to the report complained of. We would consider an addendum to be sufficient redress, particularly where the Council has offered Mr S the option to provide his own wording. We could not achieve Mr S’s desired outcome of the Council deleting the CAF assessment from its records.
Any issues with non-compliance with a court order need to be raised with a court.
If we were to continue with this investigation, and agreed with Mr S on every point he has raised, we would not ask the Council to retract a decision. Adding an addendum is considered sufficient. We may ask that a new assessment take place, but Mr S has explained his concerns that the existence of a historical report would not be rectified by this.
The Council has also accepted some failings when dealing with Mr C’s complaint. I consider the financial remedy offered by the Council is sufficient. We would not add to the Council’s complaint response by investigating further.
As explained in paragraph four of this decision, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider any complaints about data breaches.
Final decision
I have discontinued my investigation on the basis that any further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and we cannot achieve what Mr S wants. I will not investigate Mr S’s complaint about the Council’s data breach as the Information Commissioner Officer is better placed to consider this issue.
Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman