Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms B’s Care Provider. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr C to ask other bodies to consider his concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained his friend’s, Ms B’s, Care Provider purposely made written derogatory comments about him to her GP triggering a safeguarding enquiry. Although it was not pursued under safeguarding, the Care Provider said it will ask the GP to remove the comments, but this has not been done. Mr C says the comments recorded in GP’s records, are defamatory and he wants them removed from the record. In addition, Mr C wants a written apology from the Care Provider and financial compensation for the distress caused to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the NHS. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. We cannot tell Care Provider’s to remove written comments from NHS documents nor can we investigate NHS provider’s or their records.
8. It is not fault for a Council to consider information it receives regarding potential risk to those in its area under its responsibility for safeguarding vulnerable adults.
9. Defamation is properly for the court to determine, and it would be reasonable for Mr C to ask the court to consider whether the reputational damage he claims meets the criteria of defamation for court proceedings. We cannot make this finding.
10. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) explains how to challenge the accuracy of personal data held by an organisation and how to get it corrected if it is incorrect. Information can be found on the website below.

Your right to get your data corrected | ICO

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because there are other bodies better placed to consider his concerns and it would be reasonable for him to use these other bodies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman