Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint on behalf of her husband that the Council has not provided the information they are seeking about her husband’s only living relative. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr and Mrs B to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs B, complained on behalf of her husband Mr B, that the Council has not provided the information they are seeking about Mr B’s only living relative, Mr C. Mrs B told us this has caused her husband’s mental health to suffer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
3. 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)
4. 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information Mrs B provided and her comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs B’s MP in April 2019. The Council said, while it appreciated Mr and Mrs B’s wish to support Mr C, it did not have Mr C’s consent to share information with them. The Council said being related to Mr C did not entitle Mr B to receive information about him either through a Freedom of Information Act or Subject Access Request. The Council told Mr and Mrs B’s MP its local team would find out Mr C’s wishes and support him in contacting Mr B if that was what he wanted.
7. In May 2020 Mrs B told us they had received a call from someone who said she was Mr C’s social worker. The social worker told them Mr C had said he did not want contact with his relative, Mr B. The Council has not confirmed this in writing. Mrs B has questioned whether Mr C has capacity to make such a decision.
8. We would expect the Council to comply with the law on Freedom of Information Act requests and data protection. In this case it is reasonable to expect Mr and Mrs B to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. That is because the Information Commissioner is the body with the relevant powers and expertise to consider Freedom of Information Act and data protection issues.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr and Mrs B to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman