The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed a Children’s Social Care assessment. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complained about how the Council completed a Children’s Social Care assessment. He said it included inaccurate information about him and relied on information provided by his ex-partner. He said the Council did not contact him for information.
Mr X said the Council has refused to acknowledge its assessment has impacted on current court proceedings around the care of his children. He said his ex-partner had used the assessment against him. He wants the Council to issue a report preventing Mrs X from using the assessment in court; state the assessment is void and accept that it made mistakes in gathering information.
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), 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
In the Council’s complaint response, it accepted that there were factual inaccuracies in its assessment including it: incorrectly using the word methadone instead of amphetamines; stating Mr X’s property had one-bedroom instead of two; and referring to Mr X misusing alcohol.
The Council said it could not change the assessment as the case was closed, but it had amended its records to reflect the inaccuracies.
The Council said the assessment included information provided by his ex-partner and children. It recognised Mr X did not agree with the information they had provided, however, explained that did not make it factually inaccurate. It said it would not change that information. It said if Mr X believed there was still factual inaccuracies in its assessment, he could complain to the Information Commissioners Office.
Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response we will not investigate. The Council has updated its records to reflect factual inaccuracies. It has directed Mr X to the ICO if he is unhappy with its response to his request for rectification. Further investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome.
The Council said it met with Mr X to discuss the assessment. Therefore, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not contact him for information; that is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Mr X states the assessment is being used against him as part of court proceedings. We have no jurisdiction to consider what takes place in court. Mr X can raise his concerns about the factual accuracy of the Council’s assessment with the court, as part of its proceedings.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman