Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about an alleged data breach. The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider this matter.

The complaint

1. Ms X said the Council shared her child’s information with a former advocate without her permission. She said the advocate provided inaccurate information that may have delayed the issue of an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan.

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)).
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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The complaint concerns an alleged data breach and its possible consequences. This matter would be better raised with the Information Commissioner, who has powers to determine if there has been a breach, and to impose penalties. We lack such powers.
7. We have already declined to investigate Ms X’s complaint of delay in complaint 25 009 023, and will not consider the same matters again.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because another body is better placed to consider an alleged data breach.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman