Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s response to a finding that it breached his confidentiality. This is because he has a court remedy for both the breach, and for his allegation of disability discrimination in the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr C says Council staff went to a neighbouring property and identified him as a person receiving care. Mr C says this has caused him severe anxiety, exacerbated his health conditions, degraded him, showed a lack of dignity and respect and breached his Human Rights. In addition, Mr C says Council staff attended without notifying him or his personal Support Practitioner on two occasions, one occasion he was told in an email staff would be attending later the same day. Mr C says the Council has discriminated against him as it has not taken into account his Phobic Anxiety Disorder. He feels he should be given £1000 in financial compensation for the anxiety caused to him and the missed training and development opportunities he was unable to attend and £500 for the distress he suffered due to the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council says it received a referral from Mr C’s Support Practitioner on 13 January. The Council says it arranged for a wellbeing check to be carried out on 15 January because of the concerns described in the referral but did not have a contact telephone number for Mr C. It explained to Mr C’s Support Practitioner that welfare visits can be planned or unannounced. When it did not receive an answer, it arranged a second visit for the following day. The Council says it notified Mr C by email of the planned visit later that day. Following a failed second visit the officers left a calling card and message with a neighbour.
7. Mr C complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that the Council has breached his confidentiality. The ICO upheld his complaint and directed him to the Council for a remedy.
8. The Council apologised and said it was not the intention of the officers to breach Mr C’s privacy and confidentiality. It advised Mr C the officers involved had undertaken further training in confidentiality.
9. Mr C does not consider the apology and further staff training are satisfactory remedies for the injustice caused by the fault, because he says the Council has discriminated against him under the DDA by not considering his Phobic Anxiety Disorder, which causes him to experience extreme distress about such events. He says he should receive a financial settlement for the distress and severe anxiety he has been caused as well as the discrimination.
10. Mr C has a right to take these matters to court, and it is reasonable to expect him to do so as the Ombudsman cannot make these decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman