Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about information processing. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to do so. And it is unlikely we would find fault or significant injustice to Miss X by the Council’s decision to restrict her contact with it.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, says the Council disclosed information about her to a third party, holds inaccurate information about her and unfairly restricted her contact with it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Miss X provided with her complaint which included the Council’s replies. Miss X had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In May 2018, the Council held a child protection conference about Miss X’s child. This is a multi agency meeting to discuss if the child needs protecting from harm. The meeting decided the child needed protecting and it recommended a child protection plan. The Council adopted this.
6. Miss X complained later in the year that a Council officer gave a third party information about her without her consent. She also says the Council holds inaccurate information about her. She has not specified what this is, nor where it is contained.
7. Miss X says a Council officer told the Police inaccurate information about her. She says the Police then took action which damaged her property.
8. In January 2019, the Council warned Miss X not to send the Council abusive emails. It said it had received some from her email account. Later in 2019 the Council received more emails from Miss X’s email account which it decided were abusive. In early October 2019 it wrote to Miss X and explained it was restricting her contact with it.

Analysis

9. The Council in reply to Miss X’s information complaints, told her she could complain to its data protection team. Parliament set up the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to decide if data protection rules have been broken. Providing third parties with inaccurate information, or without Miss X’s consent, and holding inaccurate information can be a breach. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to complain to the ICO.
10. On the information we have, we would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to restrict contact. This does not prevent Miss X from receiving any Council service and therefore does not cause her any significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the ICO is better placed and it is unlikely we would say the Council’s decision to restrict her contact with it, was fault or caused her a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman