Summary: Mr X complains about inaccurate information held on his Council housing file and which concerns events which took place in 2018. We do not propose to investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and because an investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council holds inaccurate information about him on his housing file which it will not remove and that it ignored his contact about it for well over a year. He says he has been caused great distress as a result of this matter and by events which date back to 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

7. In 2018 Mr X says he was arrested and sent for trial in connection with the harassment of his neighbour and that he was found not guilty on all charges.
8. At this time the Council issued him with a Notice of Seeking Possession and his solicitor obtained a copy of his housing file which he saw contained an email sent from a Council officer which said Mr X had acted in a way Mr X denies.
9. Mr X says he wanted the Council to believe his version of events and he made numerous telephone calls and sent emails which were often not responded to.
10. At the beginning of this year, in response to an email sent from Mr X in December 2020, the Council noted reference Mr X had made to an email he wanted removed from his housing file but that due to the large number on it, it would need more detail to be able to track it down. It asked Mr X to provide the date, sender and recipient. It said once it had this information it would take advice from its Legal Team to see if it could be removed.
11. Based on the information Mr X then provided, the Council identified an email from one of its officers dated from 2018 which was attached to a report about Mr X’s housing situation. It told Mr X that while it noted Mr X’s concerns about inaccuracy in the report, it could not agree to its removal because the report had to be retained for audit purposes. However, it offered Mr X a “Response Note” so that he could put forward his response to statements in the report and that this note would then form part of his file.
12. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

13. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to past events from 2018. It is too late now for us to investigate what happened then and I see no grounds which warrant exercising discretion to do so.
14. Even if we did investigate the Council’s handling of his request to remove information from his file, an investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome for Mr X. The email/report the Council identified forms part of Mr X’s housing file which, for audit purposes, it must retain and it has given Mr X the opportunity to provide a “Response Note” which will be placed on his file.
15. If Mr X considers the Council’s decision on this matter infringes his data protection rights then it is open to him to contact the Information Commissioner.
16. Mr X responded to my draft decision to say that his emails and calls about this matter had not been responded to by the Council for a long time and that he did not know he could complain to the Ombudsman until recently. However, while his comments are noted, as already explained, an investigation will not lead to a different outcome and we will not pursue the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is a late complaint and because an investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman