Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions concerning her. Investigating these matters would be unlikely to lead to a better or worthwhile outcome. Some of these matters also either concern other parties for whom we have no consent, or would be better dealt with by another body.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council:
1. Did not agreed to continue to fund therapy for her;
2. Provided her with her records without following the correct identification process;
3. Suggested a male therapist when it knew this was inappropriate;
4. Created a conflict of interest with the same workers working with her husband's family;
5. Were heavy handed and inappropriate when dealing with an allegation against another member of her family; and
6. Failed to make adjustments for her needs and used those needs against her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• 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
• 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))
 

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Points a) and d)

9. The evidence I have seen shows the Council did not commit to open-ended funding of therapy sessions for Mrs X by children's social care. It could therefore decide to end the funding after more than a year and to refer her to adults’ services for a fresh assessment. It could also decide to use the same worker for Mrs X and a member of her husband’s family. That Mrs X feared a data breach does not mean investigation by us would be likely to find fault.

Point f)

10. The Council took the view when assessing Miss X’s ability to care for her children that conditions affecting Mrs X created concerns with respect to her children. The Council could do that as its child protection focus had to be primarily on the children’s needs, not hers. There is not enough evidence of fault in this matter to warrant investigation by us.

Point c)

11. There were good reasons why a male therapist would have been unsuitable for Mrs X. I note that while the Council initially suggested a male therapist, it withdrew the suggestion once it was alerted to the reason. While Mrs X would undoubtedly have found the prospect of a male therapist distressing, this would not warrant an investigation by us.

Point b)

12. I note Mrs X has not claimed there was a data breach in this matter. Even if she had done so, the Information Commissioner would be better placed than us to deal with any alleged breach. This is because it has powers that we lack to determine a breach, and to impose penalties for that.

Point e)

We have no consent to consider a complaint on behalf of another person. If the other person wishes to complain to us they are welcome to do so, or to do so with Mrs X as their representative, provided they satisfy us regarding consent.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to lead to a better or worthwhile outcome. Another body is better placed than us to consider data matters. And we do not have consent to consider matters on behalf of another person.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman