Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how a councillor handled his personal data. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with this complaint. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to carry out an investigation into the councillor. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a ward councillor (Councillor Z) breached data protection regulations when they shared his email with third parties.
2. He also complains about the Council’s decision not to investigate Councillor Z’s actions as a breach of the Council’s Code of Conduct.
3. Mr X says that as a result, he has lost faith in the Council. He wants Councillor Z suspending and retraining before being reinstated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X emailed Councillor Z about a council matter. Councillor Z passed the details onto Council complaints officers for a response.
9. Mr X complained and said he had not given Councillor Z permission to pass his email address to officers. He said his comments were observations and not complaints.
10. The Council responded and said there had been no data breach because the officers already had details of Mr X’s email address and no other personal information had been included. It also said it was reasonable for Councillor Z to consider Mr X’s email needed a response from officers. The Council said Councillor Z’s actions had not constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct and would not take further action.
11. Any issues relating to data breaches are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Regarding the Council’s decision to take no further action against Councillor Z, we will not investigate because there is no evidence of fault in how this decision was reached. Furthermore, we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants as we have no power to suspend a councillor.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider complaints about data breaches. There was no evidence of fault in how the Council decided Councillor Z had not breached the Code of Conduct.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman