Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint, brought by Mr Y, about the Council incorrectly sending her a letter about care fees for her late parents, and the Council’s data management. Investigation would not achieve a different outcome. We cannot achieve the data management outcome Mr Y seeks. There is no good reason for us to investigate the Council’s use of data as the Information Commissioner’s Office is the body better placed to consider this.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is Mr Y’s mother. Mrs X’s parents previously received care involving the Council but both died several years ago. Mr Y complains the Council:
1. incorrectly sent Mrs X a letter about her late parents’ care fees;
2. has failed to effectively manage its data.
2. Mr Y says Mrs X was distressed by the letter and had to be consoled. He wants the Council to send Mrs X flowers and £250 for her stress and trauma, and also put robust data processes in place and comply with them.

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:

• 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 a complaint.

(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’s Office (ICO) 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 from Mr Y and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council accepts it was wrong for it to have sent the care fee letter to Mrs X. This was fault. Mr Y considers Mrs X should receive further remedy, in addition to the Council’s apology. We recognise the letter caused Mrs X avoidable distress and upset. But if we investigated this matter, the remedy outcome we would seek for Mrs X’s injustice would be an apology from the Council. The Council’s officers have provided several apologies in response to the complaint. There is no different outcome to be achieved by an investigation so we will not investigate.
7. Another complaint outcome Mr Y wants is for the Council to improve and comply with its general data management processes. We are a complaints-handling body so receive and consider complaints about faults in council actions and any impacts stemming from them. We do not regulate councils and cannot order them to adopt, amend or apply the particular processes they use. It is for councils to decide on their internal processes. That we cannot achieve this complaint outcome is a further reason why we will not investigate.
8. We note Mr Y is concerned the Council may have committed a data breach when issuing the letter to Mrs X and that this would be a matter for the ICO. The Council’s officers have taken the view that it did not amount to a data issue requiring the ICO’s involvement. There is no good reason for us to investigate this part of the complaint. The ICO was created by national government to consider data protection and regulation matters, so is the body better placed to assess and decide this issue. Mr Y may wish to refer his concerns to the ICO and it would be for the ICO to decide how it responds.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• investigation would not achieve a different outcome; and
• we cannot achieve the general data management outcome Mr Y seeks; and
• there is no good reason for us to investigate the Council’s use of data as the ICO is the body better placed to consider this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman