Summary: Mr B complains that the Council is at fault for failing to remove reference to an incident he was involved in from its Prime database. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and Mr B can take the matter to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has failed to remove its record of an incident he was involved in from its Prime database despite having removed it from the electoral database following its consideration of the complaint he had made and it has not responded to his request for its removal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, 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)

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

6. Following an incident which occurred involving Mr B and two officers from the Council, the Council initially advised Mr B that due to the nature of the incident it would add a note to his file held on the electoral database and to the Council’s Prime database which records incidents of concern involving staff and the public.
7. Mr B made a formal complaint to the Council about the matter which resulted in the Council apologising for any inconvenience and upset caused to him and to its confirmation that it would remove the note placed against his property on the electoral system.
8. Mr B had sought confirmation that the note placed on the Council’s Prime database would also be removed but this matter was not addressed.
9. In response to my query as to whether the note on the Prime database had been removed, the Council clarified that the record on this database involved only the incident involving the first officer and that its duty of care to its employees required such incidents to be reported under its health and safety policy. It confirmed Mr B’s information had not been included on any violence at work register available to the whole organisation and that it is held on a system restricted to three health and safety advisers, which does not include the second officer involved later in the incident.

Assessment

10. While the Council did not explain its position regarding the note on the Prime database to Mr B when he complained about the matter, it has now clarified why the note was made and that it will be retained on this system. This is a decision for the Council to make and the merits of it are not open to review by the Ombudsman no matter how strongly the complainant may disagree with it.
11. If Mr B thinks the Council is holding inaccurate personal information, he can take the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and Mr B can take the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman