Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection. This is because the Information Commissioner Office would be best placed to consider this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council incorrectly determined consent and sent him letters about his father, Mr Y’s benefits. He said he did not give his authority and the Council incorrectly said he held Power of Attorney (POA).
2. He said the Council caused him anxiety and distress. He wants the Council to acknowledge the distress caused, correct its records and ensure it does not happen again.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) 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 and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council assumed consent and incorrectly said he had POA for Mr Y. In its response the Council said after his mother gave consent in 2023 to discuss her claim with Mr X it assumed he was dealing with Mr Y’s affairs when it sent letters addressed c/o Mr X.
8. The Council said there was no documented evidence Mr X had confirmed POA.
9. Due to this the Council partially upheld the complaint and recommended service improvements in relation to consent and POA.
10. If Mr X is unhappy with information shared by the Council and believes it has applied data protection legislation incorrectly, that would be matter for the ICO.
11. Mr X complained the Council repeatedly asked for financial information relating to Mr Y. In its response the Council explained why it needed information for an Industrial Disablement claim and for what year it related to. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Information Commissioner Office would be best placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman