Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council included incorrect information in her son’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of a significant personal injustice to Mr Y, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about data rectification.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council included errors in her son’s (Mr Y’s) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation. She told us the Council refused to amend the document as it is legally finalised.

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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. I considered the information Ms X provided when she complained to us.
5. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. A Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) authorisation allows a person to be deprived of their liberty in their best interests, in a hospital or care home, as long as they lack the capacity to consent to be there, for the purpose of being given necessary care or treatment. The Council grants the standard authorisation, in its role as supervisory body.
7. We considered a complaint from Ms X about a previous DOLS authorisation the Council granted for her son, Mr Y. Our decision in January 2018 was that there was no fault in the wording of the authorisation. We decided the assessment was evidence-based, appropriate and proportionate. The Council decided to clarify a statement in the authorisation about Mr Y’s risk of absconding.
8. The Council granted a further standard authorisation in July 2019, which is the authorisation Ms X’s current complaint is about. She says it includes incorrect information about Mr Y which the care home provided when applying to the Council for the authorisation. She says both she and the care home contacted the Council asking it to amend the authorisation, but the Council refused as it is a final legal document.
9. Ms X says some care staff have been reluctant to work with Mr Y because of labels placed on him by the authorisation. There is no assertion, however, that the incorrect information has had any material impact on the care Mr Y receives or the restrictions in place. Ms X is not challenging the fact the DOLS is necessary and in Mr Y’s best interests. Rather, the injustice Ms X alleges is the incorrect information itself. There is insufficient evidence of significant personal injustice caused to Mr Y to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
10. To resolve the issue, Ms X wants the Council to amend the authorisation so it is accurate. The General Data Protection Regulation includes a right for individuals to have inaccurate personal data rectified. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) deals with complaints about organisations’ information practices. There is not a good reason for the Ombudsman to investigate this complaint instead of the ICO and it is open to Ms X to approach the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of a significant personal injustice to Mr Y, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about data rectification.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman