The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about words used by the Council following a safeguarding referral it received. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to the referral to warrant investigation by us. Any factual inaccuracy in its records would be a matter the Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider as it has powers we lack to require rectification and impose penalties.
The complaint
Mrs X said the Council had wrongly used the term “coercive control” relating to her husband and her family without justification.
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: 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), as amended, section 34(B)) 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 the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council supplied a confidential copy of the referral it received regarding Mrs X’s family.
I we were to investigate, it is unlikely we would find the Council’s opinion that the child might be at risk of coercive control was a matter of fault. That is because it is not for us to say what view of the evidence the Council should have taken, unless the decision was taken with fault. In this case, the Council had to consider what had been reported in the referral. It did that. That it considered if what was reported might amount to coercive control, before deciding no child protection action was required, is unlikely to have been fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because: Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault in the way the Council considered the referral it received; and The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider any complaint of data inaccuracy as it has powers we lack to require rectification and to impose penalties for data inaccuracy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman