Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) service. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice. The ICO is better suited to considering Mr X’s data retention concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) service provided incorrect advice which led to his personal information being stored on its systems.
2. Mr X says the matter caused him distress and frustration.
3. Mr X wants the Council to clarify its policies and remove his personal details from its systems.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

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

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection, data processing, or data retention. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained the Council advised his employer to make a formal referral to its LADO service when the employer became aware of a potential safeguarding concern involving Mr X. Mr X said the Council demanded his personal details be included on the referral.
9. Mr X said the allegation was an unsubstantiated rumour, and the Council should have discussed the matter informally with his employer in the first instance. He said the Council should have told his employer to manage the issues internally to establish the facts of the concern before the Council requested his personal details.
10. Mr X also said the Council’s LADO service did not inform him of its decision until two days after his employer submitted the referral. The outcome of the referral was that no further action was taken.
11. Mr X asked the Council to remove his personal details from its database. The Council refused to do so because it decided retaining the referral information was necessary.

Analysis

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s LADO service.
13. While Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision to request his personal information from his employer so it could consider the concerns via a formal referral, it is not unreasonable for the Council to gather data to decide whether the concerns raised met safeguarding thresholds. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this process to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and therefore we will not investigate.
14. In addition, Mr X said the Council’s LADO service was uncontactable the day after his employer submitted the referral and about delays in deciding whether to act. While I acknowledge Mr X was likely distressed during this time, the Council decided within two days it would take no further action and informed Mr X’s employer. Therefore, any injustice caused by the alleged fault is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and we will not investigate this complaint.
15. Finally, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council retained his personal information on the original referral form and refused his request to delete this information. Mr X can now complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes data retention disputes. The ICO is better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records. I have seen no good reasons Mr X could not complain to the ICO, and so we will not consider this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and significant injustice. The ICO is better suited to considering Mr X’s data retention concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman