Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly sharing Mr X’s personal and business information with a third party. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider how the Council handled Mr X’s data, and the county court is best placed to consider his claim for compensation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council shared his personal and business information with a third party. He said this led to threats and loss of business. He wanted the Council to apologise, make service improvements and compensate him for damages to his company.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally 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)

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.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body that considers complaints about how organisations handle people’s data. There is not a reason in this case for us to consider the matter instead, and the ICO is best placed.
7. Mr X’s requested outcomes include compensation for the alleged impact on his business due to reputational damage. The ICO cannot award compensation. It is also not the role of the Ombudsman to assess economic losses or award compensation for loss or damages. Where this is a person’s primary aim, we will normally signpost them to the courts.
8. The courts are best placed to consider this matter. The county court has a sliding scale of fees relative to the amount sought. Given the potential cost to benefit ratio in this case, this is a reasonable route for Mr X to take. There is not a reason for the Ombudsman to consider the matter instead.
9. Mr X has already contacted the police about threats he says he has received. This is appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Information Commissioner and the county court are best placed to consider the matter instead.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman