Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council maintaining inaccurate data about Mrs X’s family, allegedly despite a decision from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO remains better placed than us to consider this matter as it has powers to order the rectification and erasure of data, and to impose penalties, that we lack.

The complaint

1. Mrs x said the Council refused to amend or delete inaccurate data about her family. In her complaint to the Council, she said this was despite a decision by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The complaint concerns whether the Council should amend or delete a child in need assessment. It is thus a data complaint. The appropriate body to decide the matter body is the ICO. Any alleged failure of the Council to do as the ICO has asked does not create the legal power for us to act in an auxiliary role. It remains the case than the ICO has powers to order the correction or deletion of inaccurate data. We lack such powers. It would therefore be reasonable for Mrs X to return to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because another body is better placed than us to consider this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman