The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. The law prevents us considering matters concerning court action. While some points might be separable from the court action, we cannot achieve what Miss X mostly wants (a Council officer’s dismissal). The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the alleged confidentiality breach.
The complaint
Miss X complains about the Council’s actions regarding its involvement with her child, including relating to court action.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B)) 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Much of the complaint arises from the Council’s involvement in the question of whether Miss X’s child should have contact with their father and what form any such contact should take. That matter is the subject of family court proceedings. The Council’s main involvement in that question was providing reports for the court. The court, not the Council, makes any decisions about contact. Miss X can argue her case in court.
Miss X is dissatisfied with the contents of the Council’s reports to the court and with what a Council officer told the court. The restriction in paragraph 3 means we cannot consider those points.
Miss X is also dissatisfied with the Council officer’s conduct in a meeting with Miss X and Miss X’s legal representative at court. That point is too closely linked to the court action for us to be able to separate and investigate it.
Even if some details of the Council’s actions might be separable from the court matters we cannot look at, we would only investigate if there was a reasonable prospect we might achieve what the person complaining is seeking. Miss X says she wants the officer dismissed. We cannot achieve that. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended).
Miss X also wants an apology from the Council. It would be a disproportionate use of our time and public money to investigate any points we could separate from the court action just to seek an apology.
Miss X also alleges the Council breached confidentiality. That mainly relates to the content of a court report, so the law prevents us considering that. This point might also relate to communications between the Council and the father of Miss X’s child. The Information Commissioner could consider that. I understand Miss X has contacted the Information Commissioner. In that case, it is appropriate for us to leave the Information Commissioner to deal with the matter. However, even if Miss X has not approached the Information Commissioner, it would be reasonable for her to do so. The Information Commissioner has the relevant expertise and powers to deal with alleged data breaches.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The law prevents us considering the Council’s actions related to court action. While some points might be separable, we cannot achieve the officer’s dismissal that Miss X seeks. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the alleged confidentiality breach
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman