Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about data sharing and an officer’s professionalism. There are other bodies better placed to consider these issues.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council shared information, which he had not agreed should be shared, with his child’s mother. He says this meant his child refused to see him.

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 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 Mr X provided with his complaint and the Council’s replies to him which it provided. Mr X had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says that in early January 2021 he complained to the Council that it had shared with his child’s mother a report he made to the Council about his child’s care. He says this led to his child refusing contact with him.
6. The Council considered this as a data protection complaint. It investigated it within its data protection process and decided there had not been a breach of the data protection laws. It told Mr X that if he was unhappy with the Council’s reply he should complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
7. Mr X says not only did the Council breach data protection laws, but also the social worker allocated to the case had been unprofessional and biased against him.

Analysis

8. Parliament set up the ICO to decide data protection disputes. Whether the Council breached Mr X’s confidentiality, and the data protection laws, is better suited to the ICO. This is especially so given that Mr X’s case involves child protection which has complex data protection exemptions.
9. Our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, not to hold a single officer accountable. If Mr X has concerns about the professionalism or integrity of an individual social worker, it is reasonable to expect him to report his concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there are other bodies better placed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman