Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about information accuracy, sharing and the Council labelling him. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this dispute. And there is insignificant injustice caused by the Council’s marker on his case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council holds inaccurate information about him and has shared this information with other people. He also says the Council has wrongly labelled 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. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says the Council wrongly stated in a children services’ file that he is a convicted criminal. He says the Council should have checked this information. He says it was shared with people both within the Council and outside of it. He says the Council has also wrongly labelled his case.
6. Parliament set up the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider data protection disputes. Holding inaccurate information, sharing information and labelling someone, can be data protection disputes. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer his complaint to the ICO particularly because his dispute involves child protection for which there are complex exemptions and the Council has not accepted the data sharing and criminal conviction claim.
7. Mr X says the Council used the wrong procedure to mark his file. He wants it removed. I can see no significant injustice caused to Mr X by this. The mark is for the Council’s own administrative purposes. It is unlikely we would say it has disadvantaged him.
8. Mr X says the Council delayed in replying to his complaint and failed to so in accordance with its own complaints procedure. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the ICO who is better placed to consider his data protection dispute and there is no significant injustice to Mr X by the Council’s marker.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman