Summary: We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue her with a community protection warning, and that a Council officer breached her right to confidentiality. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify our involvement, and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide complaints about data protection.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council wrongly issued her with a community protection warning and a Council officer breached her confidentiality when delivering it.
2. Miss X said the Council did not consider all the evidence properly and did not account for her health. Miss X said this caused her distress.
3. Miss X wants the Council to consider all the evidence and reconsider its decision.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Miss X complained the Council decided to issue the community protection warning without considering all the evidence and without taking account of her health.
10. In its complaint response, the Council noted its efforts to meet more informally with Miss X before it decided to issue the community protection warning. Miss X was unavailable on the occasions the Council visited her home or proposed an office appointment with her.
11. The Council said it decided to issue the community protection warning because of continuing reports of antisocial behaviour that was affecting other residents. It did not feel able to delay any intervention until Miss X could attend a more informal meeting.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. We will not investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint. The Council appears to have appropriately considered the matter, alongside partner agencies, before deciding to issue the community protection warning. While I accept that Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the decision was made to justify us investigating.
14. The Information Commissioner (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ alleged failures to follow data protection legislation.
15. We will also not investigate Miss X’s complaint that a Council officer breached her confidentiality. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, we usually expect them to complain to the ICO. This applies here.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault. Also, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about data protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman