Summary: Miss X complains about poor communication and information handling by London Borough of Islington (the Council) and Whittington Health NHS Trust (the Trust). We will not investigate her complaints. An investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s communication with her before it started an assessment. The injustice to Miss X from any poor information handling is not enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsmen and the Information Commissioner may be better placed to consider these issues.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the actions of London Borough of Islington (the Council) and Whittington Health NHS Trust (the Trust). She complains about the organisations’ handling of personal information she provided as part of an assessment for guardianship of a young relative. In particular, Miss X says that:
1. the Council’s contact with her when she was travelling before the assessment was too frequent and inappropriate;
2. the Council pressured her to have contact with her ex-partners;
3. the Council sent the Trust parts of a form which she had not consented to sharing;
4. neither organisation told her the information she provided on the form would form a part of her medical records and be shared with her GP;
5. the Trust shared the form with her GP without her consent and without telling her that it was going to do this; and
6. the medical records the Trust holds about Miss X state she was accepted as a guardian even though she decided not to go ahead with this.
2. Miss X says that information about the guardianship assessment is now in her medical records and she cannot remove it. She is concerned that other organisations that might need to access her records could assume she has care of a child, and this might affect her benefits.
3. Miss X would like the Council and Trust to:
• take accountability for the matters she complains about and apologise to her;
• improve their processes so others do not experience similar problems; and
• remove the disputed information from their records or offer her a financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA).
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, we 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).
6. If it has, they may suggest a remedy. Our recommendations might include asking the organisation to apologise or to pay a financial remedy, for example, for inconvenience or worry caused.  We might also recommend the organisation takes action to stop the same mistakes happening again.
7. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• another body, such as the Information Commissioner, is better placed to consider the complaint.

(Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered written information provided by Miss X, the Council and the Trust. This includes copies of Miss X’s complaint correspondence with the organisations. I have also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
9. Miss X has had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

A and B – The Council’s communication when Miss X was travelling and its requests to have contact with her ex-partners

10. I have seen copies of the communications between Miss X and the Council while Miss X was travelling. Miss X told the Council she would be away and the Council contacted her by text message and sent a letter while she was away. The content of the messages and letter is direct. However, it is not inappropriate or discourteous.
11. The Council was organising an assessment of Miss X’s viability as a carer of a vulnerable child. As part of this, it asked to contact her ex-partners to find out more about her relationships. Miss X told the Council that she did not consent to it contacting her ex-partners and the Council offered to speak instead to other referees who would have known about her relationships.
12. Such assessments can feel intrusive because establishing whether somebody can care for a vulnerable child safely involves scrutinising their past and current relationships. This is necessary to avoid placing a child with a carer whose relationships might pose some risks to the child. There is no suggestion the Council had any active concerns about Miss X in this respect, but it was something it had to check as part of its responsibilities to the child. In this context, the Ombudsmen would be unlikely to criticise the Council asking to contact Miss X’s ex-partners.
13. For the reasons above, an investigation by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to find fault in parts A and B of the complaint.

C to F – Sharing Miss X’s personal information, lack of clear explanations to her about what would happen with her information, incorrect information in her medical records

14. The rest of Miss X’s complaints are essentially about the way the organisations handled her personal information, and poor communication with her about information handling.
15. Miss X says the injustice this has caused her is having medical records that imply she has care of a child and this might affect future benefits assessments. She would like the organisations to apologise and delete the information or give her a financial remedy.
16. The injustice Miss X complains of is not of a scale or degree to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsmen. Even if we were to investigate:
• we cannot generally recommend deletion or correction of records; and
• we would be unlikely to recommend a financial remedy for the type of injustice claimed by Miss X.
17. Miss X may have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner about the issues in C to F. The Information Commissioner may be better suited to consider these matters and, if appropriate, recommend any inaccuracies are corrected.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaints. An investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s communication with Miss X before the assessment or its intention to contact her ex-partners. The injustice Miss X claims from the rest of her complaints is not enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsmen and the Information Commissioner may be better suited to consider them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman