Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how children’s services dealt with her family’s personal information. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with her complaint and because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the issues raised.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council’s children’s services managed personal information when carrying out enquiries. She says the Council assessed her families records without consent in breach of GDPR. She also says the Council has failed to amend inaccurate information.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council considered Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. If a complaint has already been through this procedure, it means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation and we are unlikely to reinvestigate unless the earlier investigation was flawed.
7. I have reviewed the complaint documents, including Mrs X’s views, the independent stage two reports, the stage three independent review panel report and the Council’s final stage three response.
8. The Council upheld Mrs X’s complaints at stages two and three. It apologised to Mrs X and offered to make a payment to her of £250 to remedy the distress this caused.
9. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there do not appear to be any obvious flaws in the Council's investigation and therefore there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of her complaint.
10. Mrs X says the Council’s actions constitute a data breach and that it has failed to amend inaccurate information that it holds about her family.
11. We will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider these issues. The ICO is the UK regulator for data protection and deals with enforcing UK General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 and consider and decide complaints about data protection.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with her complaint and the ICO are better placed to consider other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman