Summary: We have ended our investigation of Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaint about the actions of health visitors commissioned by the Council to provide a service to families. This is because we consider: we cannot achieve the outcome they want; we cannot add to the previous investigation by the service provider and its response already represents a reasonable outcome to some of the complaint issues; there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or enough evidence any fault caused Mr X and Mrs Y injustice: and the information commissioner is better placed than us to look at some of their concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Mrs Y and their family received visits from health visitors working for the local NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) who were commissioned by the Council to deliver a service for families in its area.
2. Mr X and Mrs Y complain about the actions of the health visitors providing this Council service to their family. They say the health visitors:

• made false accusations and recorded false information about them;
• referred them to a Council children’s panel following an Early Help Assessment which they had not wanted the health visitors to do;
• refused to provide them with the hospital’s letter to the health visiting team; and
• failed to support them with their housing application.

3. Mr X and Mrs Y say the health visitors’ actions caused them a lot of stress. They are concerned incorrect information recorded about their family will be used against them at a later stage. And because of the health visitors’ failure to help with their housing application, they had to move from their unsuitable accommodation to other accommodation a number of times before they were finally offered suitable social housing.
4. To put things right they want the Council to:

• compensate them for the additional moving and storage costs;
• correct the health visitors’ records, so they only contain the truth and not information which is wrong; and
• ensure health visitors ask parents whether they want this service and explain clearly what it involves.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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’.
6. 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)
7. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
8. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I spoke to Mr X, read the complaint and all the other information Mr X, Mrs Y and the Council provided about the complaint.
10. I invited Mr X, Mrs Y, and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered the responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

11. Mr X and Mrs Y complained to the Trust about the health visitors’ actions when delivering the Council commissioned service to their family.
12. The Trust investigated their concerns. In its response to the complaint the Trust said:

• Health visitors had a responsibility to discuss and explore health and related issues with family members;
• Records could only be amended if they were factually inaccurate. Clinical opinion would not generally be amended. If Mr X and Mrs Y advised which parts of the notes they wanted amended the team would look at this;
• Health visitors supported the family by providing letters in support of their request for alternative housing and including a request in an assessment for Council support with their housing issue;
• There was a significant waiting list for social housing in the Council’s area. It was aware the letters they are able to provide do not add a lot of weight to an application for housing with the Council.

13. Mr X and Mrs Y were not satisfied with the Trust’s response. Their complaint was referred to us because we investigate complaints against councils. Although the health visitors worked for the Trust, in this case they were delivering a service commissioned by the Council. This means the Council and not the Trust is responsible for the health visitors’ actions while delivering this service to Mr X and Mrs Y.

My view – should we investigate this complaint?

14. My view is we should not continue to investigate Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaint because:
1. We cannot achieve the outcome they want:

• It is part of a health professional’s role to reach clinical opinions and make professional judgements;
• I appreciate Mr X and Mrs Y disagree with some of the clinical opinions and professional judgements recorded by the health workers about their family. But we are not health professionals and will not be able to decide whether the judgements and opinions recorded by the health visitors were right or wrong; and
• We cannot tell the Council to take action to amend records of these judgements or opinions.
2. We cannot add to the previous investigation by the Trust and its response already represents a reasonable and proportionate outcome to some of the complaint issues;
• Many of Mr X and Mrs Y’s concerns depend on the uncorroborated word of one person against the other. There is no practical prospect we would be able to fairly or effectively investigate these concerns; and
• The Trust has already offered to look into any factual inaccuracies in its records if Mr X and Mrs Y provide it with the details of records they say are factually incorrect.
3. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or enough evidence any fault caused Mr X and Mrs Y injustice:
• The Trust has provided details of the letters of support the health visitors provided for Mr X and Mrs Y’s housing application; and
• It is very unlikely there is enough evidence to establish any of the health visitors’ actions were the direct cause of the delay in Mr X and Mrs Y receiving an offer of social housing from the Council. The delay is more likely to be due to the long waiting list for social housing in the Council’s area and the shortage of available social housing stock.
4. The information commissioner is better placed than us to look at any concerns about a failure to provide the hospital letter in response to a subject access request or about the sharing of information without consent.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We have ended our investigation of this complaint.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman