Summary: Mr X complains the Council holds inaccurate information about him which resulted in the Council holding a Child Protection Conference. The Ombudsman will not investigate because Mr X complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office and it is unlikely that we would achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council holds inaccurate information about him and refused to amend it. He does not think the Council has dealt with his complaint properly.
2. He also complains that this inaccurate information resulted in the Council holding a Child Protection Conference, because of which he separated from his partner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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)
5. It is not a good use of public money to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the complaint and the documents provided by the Council. I have written to Mr X with my draft decision and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X was the subject of a children’s safeguarding referral. Mr X says the information recorded about this referral is inaccurate.
8. Mr X told the Council the information it held was wrong. The Council explained its reasons for keeping the information on record.
9. This part of Mr X’s complaint is about data protection. Parliament set up the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to decide complaints about data protection breaches. Mr X complained to the ICO.
10. The ICO found the information held by the council was an opinion or view and therefore not inaccurate under data protection regulations. The ICO guidance recommends that where there is a challenge to the reliability of an opinion, data controllers should make a record that a challenge exists. The ICO decided the Council has properly recorded that Mr X disagrees with the comments made.
11. The ICO is the body best placed to consider this complaint and it has done so. It is unlikely that an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve a significantly different outcome.
12. Since the Ombudsman will not investigate the substantive issue, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling.
13. Mr X says the inaccurate information resulted in a Child Protection Conference which forced his ex-partner to separate from him. Mr X’s ex-partner’s decision to separate from him is not directly attributable to any action by the Council and therefore cannot be investigated by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because Mr X complained to the ICO and it is unlikely that investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman