Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to the actions of a member of staff who accessed his family’s records without legitimate reason. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation would not lead to the outcome Mr X seeks and he can appeal to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to the actions of a member of staff who accessed his family’s records without legitimate reason. This has caused him distress and he wants the worker to lose their job.

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 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2018 the Council became aware that in previous years a member of staff had accessed records relating to Mr X’s family without a legitimate reason to do so. It carried out an investigation and found a breach of the Council’s policy and procedures and took action against the member of staff involved.
6. In 2020 Mr X found out about this and complained to the Council. It responded by confirming it had investigated the matter and taken appropriate action in relation to the member of staff but that it could not disclose the nature of that action. It apologised to Mr X for the unauthorised access and explained it had considered informing him about what had happened at the time of its investigation but had decided not to do so because the staff member had said they had not disclosed information to anyone else and because of the time that had elapsed since the breaches had taken place.
7. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, and believing the staff member should lose their job, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

8. The Council investigated the unauthorised access of Mr X’s family’s records, took action in relation to the member of staff involved and apologised for what took place. Were we to investigate the complaint it is unlikely we could add to the investigation already undertaken by the Council and an investigation would not lead to the outcome Mr X seeks. We cannot investigate complaints about personnel issues and we cannot look at the nature of any disciplinary action taken by the Council.
9. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says he knows the worker did share information from the files with someone else and that there has been a major breach of the Data Protection Act. While I understand Mr X is unhappy with the outcome of the Council’s investigation, the appropriate body to consider this matter further is the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation would not lead to the outcome Mr X seeks and he can appeal to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman