Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint alleging that Council officers misused his data and defamed him. This is because there are more suitable bodies better placed to consider and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has failed to address his complaint properly about misuse of his data and defamation by staff.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused him serious personal and professional harm.
3. He would like an apology, withdrawal of the allegations and compensation for reputational damage and loss of earnings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant which includes the Council’s complaints response.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Assessment

7. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to his complaint. He says it did not address his core issues, and it also introduced an unfounded allegation concerning his conduct in its final response.
8. Mr X’s complaint to the Council is framed as, in summary, about defamatory communications, data alteration and potential surveillance. It concerns what may or may not have happened in a leisure facility linked to the Council.
9. The Council’s responses reiterate that Mr X was discussed only in relation to payments for class usage. It says it has not defamed him or altered his data. It provides the contact details for the office of the Information Commissioner in case Mr X wishes to take his complaint further.
10. The final Council response advises Mr X that it considers there have been occasions of ‘inappropriate behaviour’ after he has approached staff. It advises him of its zero-tolerance policy towards abuse of staff.
11. We will not investigate. This is because Mr X’s complaints around the use of his data are best addressed by the Information Commissioner (ICO). The ICO is the regulator for information governance issues.
12. Further, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. We are unlikely to be able to determine Mr X’s claimed injustices of defamation and loss of earnings and link these to the actions of the Council. These issues are better addressed in the courts. Defamation is a legal matter decided in the courts. And a court is better placed than the Ombudsman to determine any lost earnings arising from fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there are more suitable bodies better placed to consider and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman