Summary: Mr X complained the Council held inaccurate information about him on file, and then shared that information with another council but would not share it with Mr X. We will not investigate this late complaint. This is because Mr X could reasonably have complained sooner, and in any event the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider his complaint as it relates solely to the Council’s information practices.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the information the Council holds on file about him, and its actions in having shared that information with another Council. He complains about the length of time the Council took to respond to his Subject Access Request, and he believes its response omitted information he has a right to access.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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 the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained to us.
5. I considered Mr X’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2016, a child Mr X was fostering was removed from his care by another council. The other council told Mr X its decision to remove the child was based on information the Council provided about Mr X posing a risk to children. Mr X says he has been seeking information and resolution since 2016.
7. Mr X says the Council did not respond to a Subject Access Request until 2018. He blames this delay for his delay in complaining. However, Mr X knew in 2016 there was an allegation recorded about him, which he believed to be inaccurate, and which led to the removal of the child from his care. He had enough information at that time to complain, and it would have been reasonable for him to complain to us within a year of the child’s removal. There is not a good reason he did not escalate his complaint at that time. It would be difficult now, due to the time that has passed, for us to come to sound and fair conclusions.
8. Mr X’s complaint also relates solely to issues revolving around data protection. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to consider complaints about organisations’ information practices. Therefore, in any event, this complaint would best be considered by the ICO. Unlike us, the ICO can consider whether the Council has breached data protection legislation. It can consider whether information the Council holds, or has shared, is inaccurate and whether it should be amended or removed. It can also consider the Council’s handling of Mr X’s Subject Access Request, to decide if the Council took too long to respond and failed to disclose any information Mr X has a right to access.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this late complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to complain much sooner and in any event, the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about organisations’ information practices.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman