Summary: On the evidence currently available, we will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services team refusing to correct inaccurate information on her fostering record. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s children services team refusing to correct inaccurate information recorded in a meeting document. The meeting details an account of a serious incident where Mrs X and her husband were foster parents for a child at the time. Mrs X says this has caused her a lot of upset and worry and has led to a feeling of injustice. She would like the Council to correct the inaccuracies in the meeting document.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint. I also considered the information the Council provided. Mrs X had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received by Mrs X before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X said she and her husband attended a looked-after child review meeting in September 2019. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a serious incident regarding their foster child.
6. The Council provided a copy of the meeting minutes to Mrs X in February 2020. Mrs X said she read through the minutes and believed inaccurate information was recorded in multiple parts of the document. Mrs X asked the Council to correct all inaccuracies she had noted. She said it would be valuable for the child and future professionals involved in his care, to have an accurate record of events. This would give them an understanding of the child’s life, emotional well-being and subsequent actions taken at that time.
7. Mrs X added that the Council gave her the meeting minutes more than five months after the meeting had taken place and believed this delay could have caused misinterpretation of notes and accurate recall of events.
8. The Council responded to Mrs X and apologised to her for the mistakes it made in the recording and for the delay in sending her the meeting minutes. It agreed to correct several inaccuracies Mrs X had raised, however not all. This is because it believed other information recorded was an accurate reflection of the discussion and of the actual events that happened.
9. Mrs X challenged the response. The Council responded to Mrs X and said after further review, it would only correct the information it already agreed to. It added that as Mrs X and her husband resigned as foster carers, it could not share any more information with them.

Back to top

Analysis

10. Mrs X has the right to request her records are rectified. This means any factual inaccuracies are corrected. If the Council refuses to do so, Mrs X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider complaints about data protection which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO is better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because the ICO is better placed to consider it.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman