Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his concerns regarding the Coroner’s Office. Mr X also raised concerns about visits to his home by council officers during the COVID-19 pandemic and data protection issues. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or injustice to Mr X. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider complaints about data protection issues.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about:
• The Council’s response to his concerns about the Coroner’s Office. Mr X was unhappy the Council did not take action against staff following an investigation.
• Council staff visiting his home during the COVID-19 pandemic without wearing Personal Protective Equipment or maintaining social distancing.
• The Council wrongly sending out unredacted information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Mr X has previously complained to the Ombudsman about the Coroner’s Office and its administration of an inquest into the death of his father-in-law. We found some fault with the way the Coroner’s Office dealt with his complaint. We did not consider this fault to have caused Mr X significant personal injustice.
8. The Council has responded to a further complaint from Mr X. His concerns are different to the ones we have already considered. But they again flow from the Coroner’s Office involvement with his family following the death of his father-in-law.
9. In its responses to Mr X’s latest complaints the Council said:
• The line manager for the Coroner had considered Mr X’s comments and told him of their decision not to take disciplinary action. It was clear Mr X disagreed with the decision, but the matter was now closed.
• Mr X had agreed to two staff visiting his home and offered them drinks. There was no spread of COVID-19 because of the meeting. It was sorry Mr X had been concerned about the potential risk from COVID-19.
• Mr X’s concerns about data protection issues would be dealt with by its Information Governance Team.

Assessment

10. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. We use our Assessment Code to decide which complaints to investigate. We need to consider the likelihood of finding fault, the alleged injustice to the person complaining, and if we are the appropriate body to deal with the complaint.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the reasons set out below.

Lack of evidence of fault by the Council

12. The Council has considered Mr X’s complaint and decided not to take action against the staff from the Coroner’s Office mentioned in his complaint. This is a decision for the Council and is not something we would interfere with. We also have no powers to recommend the Council take disciplinary action against its staff.

Lack of injustice to Mr X

13. I understand Mr X was concerned about what happened when staff visited him. But there is no evidence Mr X or anyone else present caught COVID-19 because of the Council’s officer’s actions. The lack of injustice means an investigation is not appropriate.
14. The Council’s decision not to take disciplinary action against its staff has also not caused Mr X any personal injustice.

The role of the ICO

15. The 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’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes disclosing information in error.
16. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. I consider that to be the case here and Mr X should therefore approach the ICO about his concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or injustice to Mr X. Data protection issues are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman