Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the information the Council holds about him. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed, it is unlikely we could achieve more than the Council’s offer to place his views on its file and he has not been caused a significant injustice by not knowing the information for three years.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council holds inaccurate information about him which it refused to remove.

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:
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• 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 with his complaint and the Council’s replies which it provided. Mr X had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2017, the Council received a report that a child, Y, alleged that Mr X had harmed them. It made some enquires, held a strategy meeting which the Police attended, and spoke with Y. The Council took no further action and closed its case.
6. In 2020, Mr X became aware of this. He discovered the Council held information about him on Y’s records which he disagreed with. He complained to the Council. It agreed to place on the record his version of events or comments. It said it could not change the records. It apologised for not telling Mr X about the allegation earlier.

Analysis

7. Mr X has the right to request records are ‘rectified’. This means any factual inaccuracies are corrected. If the Council refuses to do so, he can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO is better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files.
8. It is unlikely our investigation would achieve more than the Council’s offer of placing Mr X’s versions of events on the case file.
9. Not knowing the Council held information about Mr X for three years, which he disputes, does not of itself cause Mr X a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation. The Council has apologised for not telling Mr X earlier, but there is no evidence Mr X not knowing this information earlier has caused him any problems.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the ICO is better placed, it is unlikely our investigation could achieve more, and Mr X has not been caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman