Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Surrey County Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 24-023-397 Sector Adult Care Services Category Safeguarding Decided 10 June 2025

View Surrey County Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging an officer did not keep information confidential. This is because there is no evidence of fault with the Council’s response.

The complaint

Mx A complains that an officer breached the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and this is a safety risk for children.

They would like the Council to look at a report and contact the complainant.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by the complainant that includes the Council’s response.

I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Mx A is concerned with an unnamed officer’s actions which they say potentially affects the safety of unnamed children. The Council has advised Mx A that, due to the lack of information, it cannot investigate anonymous complaints.

We will not investigate as there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s response. It has acted to respond to Mx A and explained the reasons it cannot consider.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mx A’s complaint because there is no fault.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Surrey County Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-015-766 Upheld
25-004-026 Other
25-005-021 Upheld
25-016-771 Other
25-006-993 Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation