Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about contact arrangements. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with concerns about data protection matters.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about her experience at a contact centre. She says that she was not invited to a pre-visit meeting meaning she was unable to provide important information about her children and that she was not provided with policies. She also says her personal information was shared with a third party in breach of General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

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 information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that she was not invited to a pre-visit meeting. This is because I do not consider that the injustice caused to her or her children was significant enough to warrant investigation. Whilst the Council has accepted a visit should have taken place, it has said that Miss X was still given the opportunity to provide any relevant information via her solicitor prior to visits taking place. The Council has provided reassurances that both parents would be invited to pre-visit meetings going forward.
7. Miss X complained that she was not provided copies of the contact centre’s policies prior to visits being arranged. I will not investigate this element of Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. There is no obligation for it to provide this information automatically, and it provided copies of relevant policies to Miss X in responding to her complaint. Even if there were opportunities for the Council to provide this information sooner, I do not consider that the Council’s failure to do so has caused Miss X a significant injustice.
8. Finally, Miss X complains that her personal information was shared with a third party in breach of GDPR. I will not investigate this element of her complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider complaints about data protection matters.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice. The ICO is better placed to deal with concerns about data protection matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman