Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about information contained in Council’s records about him. This is because he could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mr C wants.

The complaint

1. Mr C says the Council should remove all comments about him being racist from its records because they are not correct and he has never been convicted of any racist offences. Mr C says the Council lied about the information it provided to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Mr C provided. I sent Mr C a copy of my draft decision and considered his comments and additional documentation.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr C complained to the Council when it prepared a report containing information about him he says is untrue.
5. The Council says although Mr C has never been convicted of racist offences, he has been arrested and prepared the report to include information found on police documents.
6. The Council referred to the ICO for advice on this matter and advised it of the documentation it had based its comments on.
7. Mr C made a formal complaint to the ICO about the information in the report.
8. The Council disputed it had lied to the ICO. It said it imputed further information it received from the police by way of rectification and amendment.
9. Mr C remains unhappy and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint.
10. The Ombudsman could not achieve any more than the Council has undertaken even if he investigated and found evidence of fault. Mr C can ask the ICO to consider his concerns about the Council lying to it.
11. Mr C can ask the Council to put a record of his views to be considered alongside the report outlining the inaccuracies he believes is contained on his file. This does not require an Ombudsman investigation.

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because he could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mr C wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman