South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 009 212)
Category : Children's care services > Other
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 26 Oct 2019
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council has refused to remove or amend false information it holds about him. This is because he has brought his concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner, which is the appropriate body to consider them.
The complaint
- The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr A, complains that the Council has refused to remove or amend false information it holds about him.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered what Mr A has said in support of his complaint and in response to my draft decision.
What I found
- Mr A says the Council holds false information about him on its files. He says he has asked the Council repeatedly to remove or amend the information but it has refused to do so.
- The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint because there is another body better placed to do so. The Information Commissioner considers complaints about the accuracy of information held by councils. Mr A says he has brought his concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner, who is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider them. That being the case, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.
Final decision
- The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr A has brought his concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner which is the appropriate body to consider them.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman