The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a member of a school’s staff. We have no legal power to investigate the actions of a school or its staff.
The complaint
Ms X complained an ex-Council employee harassed her by reporting her to the Council. She said the person’s actions led the Council to record things about her that were not true.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools unless it relates to special educational needs, when the schools are acting on behalf of the council to secure educational provision as set out in Section F of the young person’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The person who Mrs X complained about is an ex-employee who worked for a school. The person made a safeguarding referral to the Council. The person’s actions were the school’s actions, not the Council’s. We have no legal power to investigate the actions of a school.
What the person reported to the Council meant it had to consider if Ms X’s child was at risk of harm. I would have expected the Council to do this whether the person making the referral was an ex-employee or not. It was not fault for the Council to contact Ms X in seeking to satisfy itself there was no risk.
The Council accepted one comment in its record was not fair. It said it would remove it. Any injustice caused by the comment being recorded was limited as it agreed to remove it and had in any case found no grounds to take child protection action.
If Ms X maintains there are further data inaccuracies rather than professional opinions in the Council’s records, she could approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO has powers to require rectification and to impose penalties that we lack.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman