Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding enquiry. We cannot investigate actions the Council took as a social landlord, and the Information Commissioner’s office is better placed to consider complaints about data handling. Of the remaining complaint, there is insufficient injustice and evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council unfairly launched a safeguarding enquiry about him as retaliation for complaints he made about its actions as his landlord.
2. Mr X says the enquiry was a result of the Council mishandling his data and complains about how his data has been shared and stored.
3. Mr X says the Council is threatening to evict him.
4. Mr X complains about how the Council conducted its safeguarding enquiry, and says the Council did not share mandatory documents.
5. Mr X complains about how the Council managed his complaint.
6. Mr X says the Council has caused him distress and lives in fear that he will be penalised because of inaccurate data. He wants the Council to close the safeguarding enquiry and correct the data it holds on him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
8. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
9. 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)
10. 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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
12. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
13. I considered the relevant statutory guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

14. Mr X is a council tenant and says the Council has threatened him with eviction. We cannot investigate actions taken by the Council in its capacity as a social landlord. So, we cannot investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.
15. The Council’s decision to make a safeguarding referral arose from concerns it had as a social landlord. So, we cannot investigate this part of the complaint.
16. I have reviewed the safeguarding papers, and I have seen no evidence of malicious intent in the Council’s decision to open a safeguarding enquiry under s42 of the Care Act 2014. I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council did the enquiry or in its attempts to discuss concerns with Mr X. There are no mandatory notices owed to Mr X, but statutory guidance does expect the Council to attempt to discuss concerns with Mr X as soon is as practicable. I am satisfied the enquiry was done in line with statutory guidance. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council and will not investigate this complaint.
17. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means 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.
18. Whilst I recognise Mr X’s concerns about the events leading up to the safeguarding enquiry, which we cannot investigate, the enquiry itself was proportionate and done properly. As such, it does not, by itself, amount to a significant injustice warranting investigation. Furthermore, we could not recommend the Council close a safeguarding enquiry, regardless of whether Mr X thinks it was opened due to incorrect data or malicious intent.
19. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data and respond to requests for information. Mr X tells us the ICO has refused to investigate his complaint and advised him to take court action instead. If so, I have seen no reason Mr X could not start court action, and this does not present a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.
20. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because cannot investigate actions the Council took as a social landlord, and the Information Commissioner’s office is better placed to consider complaints about data handling. Of the remaining complaint, there is insufficient injustice and evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman