Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in her detention under the Mental Health Act. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. Some of Ms X’s concerns are matters for other bodies to consider.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s involvement in her detention under the Mental Health Act in December 2023 and January 2024. She alleges a Council Officer impersonated her in a telephone call to the police. She also alleges she was unfairly detained. Ms X says the Council has breached her personal data under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

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 investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the National Health Service (NHS). (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
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. Ms X was detained under the Mental Health Act from 15 December 2023 to 4 January 2024. Decisions to detain any person under this legislation are made by an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) and two doctors. Any complaints Ms X has about the way the Mental Health Act was used in her case are for the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to investigate. We cannot intervene in such matters in place of the CQC.
9. Ms X alleges a Council Officer impersonated her in a telephone call to the police in December 2023. She has provided us with a screenshot showing the placing of the call, which I presume is from her mobile phone. This does not provide proof that a Council Officer placed this call, only that the call was placed. The Council has explained it has found no evidence in its records to show any Council Officer placed the call to the police as Ms X alleges. There appears to be insufficient evidence to support Ms X’s allegation to justify us investigating this issue further.
10. Ms X has complained about the Council’s processing of her personal data. She says she had withdrawn her consent for it to do so. The Council has explained why it has continued to process Ms X’s personal data. Any continued concerns Ms X has about this would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider rather than us. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and other bodies better placed to consider her concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman