Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council wrongly sharing confidential information. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about organisations’ information practices.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council shared information from a child protection meeting after telling attendees all information would be confidential. The Council officer denied sharing information. Mr X said the Council believed the officer with no investigation, despite Mr X having evidence and witnesses.

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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (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 Mr X provided when he complained to us.
5. I considered information from the Council.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X’s family attended a child protection conference, where they were told nothing should be shared outside of the meeting. However, Mr X says they then found out the Council had shared information with another family member, with whom they did not want information sharing. Mr X says he has a recording from a telephone call and witnesses to prove the Council shared the information.
8. However, Mr X says the Council officer said they had not shared the information, and the Council believed the officer without investigating events properly. Mr X wants a full and impartial investigation of what happened, and for the Council to dismiss the employee in question.
9. The Information Commissioner’s Office investigates complaints about organisations' information practices and unlike the Ombudsman, it can come to a decision about whether the Council has breached data protection legislation. It is better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint and to provide the investigation he seeks. The Information Commissioner’s Office cannot order the Council to dismiss the member of staff as this would be for the Council to consider under employment law if necessary. The Ombudsman also cannot recommend disciplinary action. There is not a good reason, in this case, for us to investigate this complaint instead of the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it relates solely to a data breach, and therefore the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to investigate it as the organisation that considers organisations’ information practices.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman