Summary: The Council sent correspondence to a third party about anti-social behaviour that contained information about Ms B’s actions which the Council worded as fact rather than officer opinion. This was fault; the Council should have been clear it was officer opinion based on evidence but not a fact. This has upset Ms B. The Council will apologise, rectify its records and the correspondence to the third party, and remind relevant officers to be careful with the language used in records and correspondence.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Ms B, says the Council sent correspondence to a neighbour which contained inaccurate data about her. The Council says Ms B planned with her neighbour to move her car into a parking space, and that she ran out to her car. Ms B says these things are untrue, and the Council never contacted her for her side of things before writing these things about her. Ms B would like an apology from the officer involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms B, including during a telephone conversation. I considered information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
6. I considered our jurisdiction to investigate this complaint as the Council thought the case might be for the Housing Ombudsman. The Council said it relates to the actions of an officer acting in the capacity of a landlord. Ms B is not a Council tenant so cannot complain to the Housing Ombudsman about the Council’s actions. Although the Council has responsibility as a landlord because one of the parties involved is a Council tenant, in this case the powers in use were anti-social behaviour powers which come under our remit.
7. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council has been dealing with various complaints of anti-social behaviour on the street where Ms B lives.
9. The Council wrote to one of Ms B’s neighbours about ongoing issues, and in that correspondence referred to an incident involving Ms B. The Council said CCTV footage showed Ms B quickly running out of her house. I have seen the CCTV footage and Ms B is clearly shown walking from her house to her car. The Council said, “This was obviously something planned by [the neighbour] and [Ms B]”.
10. Ms B denies that she planned anything with her neighbour and is upset that the Council never asked her what happened before reaching its views.

Was there fault causing injustice?

11. I find no fault in the Council writing to Ms B’s neighbour without contacting her first to ger her side of the story. However, I do find fault in the language the Council used within its contact to the neighbour.
12. The Council says what occurred was “obviously something planned”. This is not a fact, and the Council should not be stating it as such. The Council was also wrong to say Ms B quickly ran from her house, when the CCTV footage shows she walks. The Council should be clear when something is officer opinion; it could have said something like ‘based on the CCTV footage it is our view you and your neighbour had planned those actions’.
13. What the Council has written has upset Ms B, and she has had time and trouble complaining about it.
14. Whilst investigating, I noticed the Council sent its complaint response to Ms B’s husband. Mr B was not a party to the complaint and the Council should not have written to him about it. The Council has dealt with this data breach though its relevant procedure, reported the breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office, and apologised to Ms B. I am satisfied that is appropriate action in response.

Agreed action

15. To acknowledge the impact on Ms B from the identified fault, and to prevent future problems, the Council will:
1. Apologise to Ms B for the wording of its e-mail to her neighbour. The Council made statements as if they were facts with no basis for doing so. Although Ms B wanted an apology from the officer concerned, our jurisdiction is over the Council. Individual officers act on behalf of the Council, so an apology from an appropriate representative of the Council is sufficient.
2. Write to Ms B’s neighbour (who it sent the e-mail containing the error), rectifying what is written. The Council should explain it is officer opinion rather than fact. The Council should correct its case record in the same way.
3. Remind relevant staff to be careful of the language they use in case recording and correspondence. The Council should be clear on where something is fact and where it is officer opinion based on evidence.
16. The Council should complete the above actions within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision, and evidence its compliance to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation on the basis the agreed action is enough to acknowledge the impact on Ms B and to prevent future problems.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman