Summary: Mr X complained the Council insulted him and shared private information with his neighbour. We will not investigate this complaint. Another organisation is better placed to deal with the data breach. Any injustice caused by the alleged insulting behaviour is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• Insulted him when he complained about his noisy neighbour.
• Shared private information with the neighbour he was complaining about.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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.
6. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X reported to the Council that his neighbour was creating a noise nuisance. The Council investigated and installed noise recording equipment in Mr X’s home. The Council use the data recorded plus its own notes as evidence during its investigation.
8. Mr X said the Council shared his diary notes with the neighbour he was complaining about. He said this was a data breach. When the Council held a mediation meeting with Mr X and his neighbour, Mr X says he was mocked and insulted by the Council.
9. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) deals with reported data breaches. For this reason, we should not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the ICO.
10. Mr X complained about the Council insulting him. While I can see this was distressing for Mr X, I do not consider the injustice to be significant enough to warrant our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• the ICO is better placed to handle the alleged data breach; and
• any injustice caused by the alleged insult is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman