Summary: We should not investigate Mr X’s complaints. The Information Commissioner’s Office has already addressed his complaint about Camden and North West London NHS Foundation Trust. Also, Mr X has already used his appeal rights to challenge Westminster City Council’s decision that he was intentionally homeless.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that Camden and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) shared information with Westminster City Council’s (the Council) housing team before he had provided consent to do so. Also, a staff member at the Trust told the Council about a false allegation of sexual assault. That breached his confidentiality. He says the Trust worsened his mental health and he lost faith in the Trust. Mr X would like an apology and changes to the Trust’s procedures around consent and sharing information. He would also like a financial remedy for the impact to him, and to fund private treatment.
2. Mr X also complains the Council placed him in an unsuitable temporary accommodation, after wrongly deciding he was intentionally homeless. He says the Council moved him away from his friends, family, and support network. That worsened his mental health when the Council destabilised him.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsmen consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
4. The law says we normally cannot investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
6. The Ombudsmen provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. They may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if they believe they cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the organisations. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Alleged breach of confidentiality

8. In December 2019, Mr X shared details of historic abuse with the Trust.
9. In June 2020, he told the Trust an allegation of sexual assault against him was false and asked it not to share details about historic abuse without his consent. The Trust asked Mr X if it could share information with the Council’s housing team as part of their risk assessment. Mr X consented.
10. In September 2020, in response to Mr X’s complaint, the Trust said Mr X consented to share information with other agencies on many occasions. Also, the Trust did not share any information about an alleged sexual assault to the Council.
11. Mr X raised his concerns to the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO). The ICO said the Trust did not breach Mr X’s confidentiality. Also, the Trust had reasonably addressed his concern about the alleged sexual assault.
12. I do not consider I should investigate Mr X’s complaint. Mr X has already raised his concerns with the ICO, who are a better organisation to handle his complaint about data protection failings.
13. Mr X disputes the evidence the Trust has supplied to the ICO. The ICO said it cannot decide if organisations have acted in bad faith.
14. I consider the ICO has already robustly considered the Trust and Mr X’s evidence before deciding the Trust had not breached his confidentiality. I do not consider an Ombudsman investigation is likely able to make a different finding to the Trust or the ICO.

Temporary accommodation

15. In December 2019, Mr X put in a homelessness application to the Council. The Council rejected Mr X’s homelessness application because he was intentionally homeless.
16. In July 2020, the Council placed Mr X in temporary accommodation awaiting the result of an internal review of the Council’s decision. Three months later, the Council upheld its decision that Mr X was intentionally homeless.
17. In March 2021, Mr X requested to move to alternative accommodation. The Council later moved Mr X to a hostel for homeless people.
18. In response to Mr X’s complaint about his homelessness application and the temporary accommodation, the Council rejected his application because he was intentionally homeless, but still offered him temporary accommodation. Most emergency beds are outside Westminster, so the Council could only offer what was available. Also, he had applied to County Court to appeal the Council’s decision and was waiting for the Court to process his paperwork.
19. We normally expect people to use the specific review and appeal rights the law provides to them. I consider Mr X has already used his right of appeal and started court proceedings. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to investigate his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

20. For the reasons set out above, I have decided not to investigate Mr X’s complaints.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman