Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with his child because we decided it is reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court. We will not investigate the remainder of Mr X’s complaint about data accuracy because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council completed an assessment regarding his child, Y, which he said contained inaccurate information. Mr X said the outcome of the assessment resulted in Y’s other parent refusing to allow Mr X contact with them.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him distress and frustration.
3. Mr X wants the Council to conduct a new assessment to enable him to see Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection or data handling. 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

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Contact with Y

10. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint. Mr X wants the Council to allow contact between him and his child, Y. The Council explained Mr X does not have Parental Responsibility for Y as he is not named on Y’s birth certificate, and he does not have a court order granting him Parental Responsibility.
11. The Council also said Y’s other parent refused to allow it to conduct an updated assessment. Therefore, it is unable to consider the matter further. The Council told Mr X to seek private legal advice.
12. Because Mr X’s desired outcome is to have contact with his child, the only way to achieve this is through the courts. The Ombudsman has no power to instruct a parent with Parental Responsibility to allow contact with another party. Only the courts can do this. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to apply to the courts for a Child Arrangements Order or similar order. The court can then determine whether Mr X should have contact with Y.

Inaccurate assessment

13. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X explained the Council had recorded incorrect information about him during its original assessment.
14. Mr X has the right to ask records are ‘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.
15. I have seen no good reason the Ombudsman should consider this complaint in place of the ICO, and therefore we will not consider this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We cannot investigate part of Mr X’s complaint because we decided it is reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court. We will not investigate the remainder of Mr X’s complaint because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman