Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in assessing Ms X’s care needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about data protection.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
• held a multidisciplinary meeting about her without informing or inviting her. She said at this meeting it was decided all services would block her and refuse her access;
• denied her hoarding tendencies, and refused to visit her or provide care;
• denied her an advocate; and
• reported her to her housing association in order to have her evicted, which she considered a breach of confidentiality and misuse of her data.
2. Ms X said this caused a significant impact on her mental health and ability to manage her day to day needs. She wanted the services to allow her access again.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X has complained to us previously about similar matters. This decision considers events between March 2024 and March 2025.
8. The Council explained to Ms X in its complaint responses that it wished to work with her to move forward and put the support in place that she required. It explained Ms X was assessed as having eligible care needs when it had last completed a Care Act assessment. The Council explained the steps it had taken to try and meet with Ms X to complete her new Care Act needs assessment, which is necessary before it can make decisions about what support Ms X requires going forward.
9. There is insufficient evidence the Council recorded a decision it would no longer support Ms X, and the information in its complaint responses indicates it continues to make attempts to work with her. It is open to Ms X to work with the Council to complete a Care Act needs assessment so the Council can put appropriate support in place. There is insufficient evidence the Council failed to recognise that Ms X has eligible care needs and hoarding tendencies.
10. The Council explained the advocacy support Ms X has received and confirmed she continued to have a named advocate at the time of its complaint response. There is insufficient evidence the Council denied Ms X access to advocacy.
11. The Council explained to Ms X it had met with other organisations without her present. It explained this was because it was concerned about Ms X coming to harm, and it was necessary to share information between organisations to decide how best to support her. Where the Council has properly considered a decision, we cannot criticise that decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council decided to meet other agencies without Ms X present.
12. In any event, we could not achieve anything by investigating this complaint. The outcome Ms X sought was to have the Council allow her access to its service. There is insufficient evidence the Council denied Ms X access to its service.
13. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the organisation that is best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data. It is open to Ms X to refer her complaint about the Council sharing information with her housing association to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about data protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman