The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept Mr X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement, and the substantive matters would be better placed with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The complaint
Mr X complained to the Council about its children’s service involvement with his family, which ended in 2022. Mr X said the Council refused to consider his complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
Mr X said the matters have caused an impact to the health of his family.
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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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) 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
Mr X complained to the Council about its children’s services involvement with his family. Mr X’s concerns related to its involvement from over 10 years ago, and which ended in 2022. Mr X’s substantive concerns were about the Council holding incorrect information about him and his family.
Mr X complained to the Council in July 2026 and asked it to consider his concerns under the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
Statutory guidance says statutory complaints should be made within one year but gives Councils a wide discretion to investigate older complaints. This is where a person could not reasonably have complained earlier, or where evidence remains available to investigate the complaint properly.
In its response, the Council refused to consider the complaint due to the concerns being historical. It set out its consideration of whether to exercise discretion to investigate this complaint despite it being late but said it was not proportionate for it to do so. However, the Council offered Mr X the opportunity to discuss his concerns with a senior leader.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
The available evidence suggests the Council appropriately considered its discretion before deciding to refuse the late complaint, in line with statutory guidance. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making and therefore we cannot question it. For this reason, we will not investigate.
In any case, Mr X’s concerns relate to data the Council holds about him. Mr X has the right to ask for his records to be ‘rectified’. This means any factual inaccuracies are corrected. If the Council refuses to do so, he can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider if the Council should change its records, particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman