Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council accessing Miss X’s social media account. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained a staff member from the Council accessed her social media page and her complaint response about the matter was delayed.
2. Miss X said it caused distress and she lost confidence in the Council.
3. Miss X would like the Council to recognise the delay in her complaint, provide an apology and make service changes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X has a profile on a social media platform. She said a Council officer accessed her profile on three occasions. Miss X said this was an invasion of her privacy and made a complaint to the Council.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter. While I appreciate Miss X's concerns about staff accessing her social media page, I do not consider the issue complained about caused them a significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
9. In its response to Miss X the Council apologised for any distress caused when a staff member had accessed her profile. The Council has a social media policy and the staff may refer to this for further information about proper social media use. It said staff were reminded of their duties about social media. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, an apology was made, staff were reminded of their duties and the Council said it will not access her social media.
10. Miss X complained there were delays in the complaints process. I have considered the impact of any delay in complaint handling by the Council. It is not a good use of public money to investigate complaints about complaint procedures where we decide to not investigate the substantive issue.
11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her complaint of how a Council officer accessed her social media page. Any injustice experienced is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. 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

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the injustice she sais she experienced is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Additionally, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman