Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged defamation by social workers and the prevention of an adoption by Mrs X and her family. The matters complained of involve the opinions recorded by social workers, and regardless of their accuracy, they are likely to have been closely connected with the court action in which Mrs X contested the Council’s decision that the adoption they had planned should not go ahead.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council defamed her and her family’s characters as foster carers, and prevented an adoption they intended. She said they had to go to court to fight this. She wanted substantial compensation, an apology from the social workers involved to be placed on the records, training for social workers, and disciplinary action taken.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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))
4. 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Although the Council’s final response to Mrs X’s complaint upheld it and apologised, we cannot investigate the substantive matters of the complaint. This is because Mrs X has confirmed her family took legal action to overturn the adoption decision. The Council’s assessments of her family and the opinions formed, even if erroneous or defamatory, are therefore likely to have been directly raised in court, or it would have been reasonable for them to have been.
8. Although not the primary reason, even if there had been no court involvement, investigation by us would still be unlikely to lead to most of the outcomes desired by Mrs X. We could not make a finding of defamation, or of data inaccuracy, which would be for a court or the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) respectively. Substantial compensation for defamation, damages or the costs of legal action would also be a matter for a court. We lack powers to make any disciplinary recommendations. And we deal with councils corporately, so we regard corporate apologies as sufficient, rather than individual apologies.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the matters complained of are closely linked to matters that were or could reasonably have been raised in court.
10. Even if that were not so, investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to most of the outcomes Mrs X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman