Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sharing information with a third party, and about defamation of character and loss of employment. There are other bodies better placed to consider these issues, and no worthwhile outcome achievable by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council disclosed untrue information to her employer, which resulted in her losing her job. Ms B also says the Council failed to interrogate information provided as part of a safeguarding investigation. Ms B is stressed and frustrated. Ms B says it is a defamation of character and she wants compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman cannot decide Ms B’s injustice of losing her job is solely because of the Council’s actions. The decision about Ms B’s employment was one for her employer to make considering all information and evidence available to it, and it is not within our powers to consider Ms B’s employer’s decision and whether it was properly made.
7. Whether the Council should have shared information with Ms B’s employer would be best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office. It can consider when an organisation has disclosed information about you, if it holds inaccurate information about you, and if it has collected information for one reason and used it for something else.
8. Ms B says the Council did not properly interrogate data during a safeguarding investigation. Ms B says she has shown a care agency manipulated the data. There is no significant personal injustice to Ms B that would warrant an Ombudsman investigation The purpose of a safeguarding investigation is to protect vulnerable adults at risk of abuse or neglect. Ms B was not the subject of the safeguarding investigation and does not represent a vulnerable adult. So, there would be no worthwhile outcome achievable by an Ombudsman investigation.
9. Defamation is a legal matter and not within the Ombudsman’s powers to decide. Ms B would be best placed seeking legal action for compensation for defamation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because we cannot say the Council’s actions caused Ms B’s injustice of losing her job, that was a decision made by her employer. There is another body better placed to consider if the Council was at fault when it shared information with Ms B’s employer. There is another body better placed to consider if the Council defamed Ms B’s character. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms B wants, for compensation for defamation, and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman