Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly identifying the nearest relative when Mr Y was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The Council has already apologised to Mr X which is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly identified another family member (Mr Z) as his brother’s (Mr Y’s) nearest relative when Mr Y was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. He said the Council therefore wrongly shared information with Mr Z.
2. Mr X said this caused him anger. He wanted the Council to make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X notified the Council in early 2025 that it had identified the wrong family member as Mr Y’s nearest relative when he was sectioned under the Mental Health Act. He says it had relied on a previous delegation from Mr Y’s oldest sibling, but that sibling had since moved out of the country.
9. The Council accepted via its complaints process that the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) had wrongly identified Mr Z as the nearest relative. It explained that when Mr X notified it of this error, it correctly identified Mr X as the nearest relative and offered to discuss the matter with him. Mr X declined because he did not consider the AMHP competent given they had made the initial error.
10. We will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
11. The Council said in its complaint response that the error would have invalidated Mr Y’s section 3. Despite this, there is no evidence the fault in this case had a significant impact on the outcome. Mr X did not raise any objections to Mr Y being sectioned, nor has he told us he did not agree with the section. Had there been no fault, Mr Y would still have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
12. Any injustice in this case is limited to Mr X’s frustration. The Council has apologised to him and that is sufficient to recognise the injustice caused to Mr X. There is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice caused to Mr X or Mr Y that would justify further investigation by the Ombudsman.
13. It is open to Mr X to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is the body responsible for considering complaints about how organisations handle people’s data. It is best placed to consider a complaint about whether the Council was wrong to share information with Mr Z.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has apologised and I am satisfied this is sufficient to remedy the injustice in this case of frustration caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman