Summary: We will not investigate part of Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s data handling because the Council updated its records and attached Ms X’s views to its files. An investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Councild did not “rectify” all records because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council recorded and shared inaccurate information relating to her family.
2. Ms X said the matter caused her distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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, section 34(B))

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection, data handling, or right to rectification. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not investigate this complaint. Ms X’s complaints are primarily about data handling, processing, and rectification.
8. In its complaint response the Council explained it updated some records and attached Ms X’s views about other discrepancies to reports it had created to enable anyone viewing the information to see her views. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything else for that part of the complaint.
9. Ms X also asked the Council to “rectify” its records to correct what she views as factual inaccuracies. The Council refused to do so in relation to some information. Consequently, Ms X could complain to the Information Commissioner. Parliament created the Information Commissioner to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The Information Commissioner is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider if the Council should change its records, particularly because there are complex exemptions for child protection case files. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate part of Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate the remainder because the Information Commissioner is better suited to consider the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman