Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection matters, an occupational therapy assessment and a meeting between services. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about data protection. There is not a good reason for the delay in other matters being brought to the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained, via a professional representative, the Council:
1. committed a data breach by storing and using misleading personal information obtained illegally;
2. refused a Subject Access Request;
3. failed to involve Mr X in a safeguarding meeting, breaching the Care Act, and involved an unauthorised person;
4. did not provide the support Mr X sought from an Occupational Therapy assessment; and
5. refused to respond properly to Mr X’s complaints, and included untruths in the response it did issue.
2. Mr X’s advocate said these matters impacted eviction proceedings and hindered Mr X’s ability to complain to the Ombudsman and achieve a legal remedy. They said the Council was using the false information to inform assessments and decisions around care. They said this has caused Mr X significant distress. They wanted the Council to delete information obtained illegally or that is out of date, provide a response to Mr X’s Subject Access Request, and provide proper complaint responses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

Complaints about how the Council handled information

7. A substantive part of Mr X’s complaint relates to how the Council handled his personal data. Where someone has a complaint about an organisation’s information practices, we will normally signpost them to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is best placed to consider complaints a) and b).

Complaints about a meeting and Occupational Therapy

8. Parts of Mr X’s complaint that are matters we could investigate are about events of which Mr X was sufficiently aware more than 12 months before he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. The law says people must bring complaints to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter, unless there are good reasons.
9. Mr X’s advocate said the reasons for delay in bringing complaints c) and d) to the Ombudsman included having awaited a response to an information request. There is no requirement that complainants access information themselves before bringing a complaint to us. Where we decide to investigate a complaint, it is for us to obtain the information we require.
10. Mr X was aware of the outcome of one Occupational Therapy assessment in early 2023 and received a final complaint response about that in September 2023. That complaint response signposted to the Ombudsman. It was reasonable for Mr X, via his advocate from whom he already received support, to bring that complaint to us at the time.
11. Mr X was aware of the outcome of a further Occupational Therapy assessment in February 2024. That was 14 months before he came to the Ombudsman. Mr X complained to the Council and it issued a complaint response in November 2024.
12. Mr X’s advocate told us as this letter was not on a letterhead, did not signpost to the Ombudsman and contained errors in their view, they did not consider it a final complaint response that would enable them to escalate the matter to the Ombudsman. While we expect councils to signpost to us at the end of complaint responses, Mr X and his advocate were aware of the Ombudsman and therefore I am satisfied any fault in this respect did not prevent them contacting us at that time. It would have been reasonable for them to do so, and a further five months passed until they brought the matter to us. It was not necessary for them to seek further responses that they considered sufficiently official, and this is not a good reason for delay that would justify us now investigating late matters.
13. The meeting referred to in complaint c) is one that happened in December 2021, although Mr X says he found out about the meeting later via the Council’s complaints process. Mr X found out some time in 2022 that his landlord had attended a meeting with the Council, and the Council’s complaint response which mentions this was sent to Mr X in June 2022. There is not a good reason for the subsequent delay in this matter being brought to us.

Complaints about complaint-handling

14. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. We will not investigate the complaints about the Council’s complaint-handling (complaint e]) in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is partly about matters that are better considered by the Information Commissioner, and partly about late matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman