Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his wife, Mrs B, that the Council has not responded to her complaint about its failure to delete her employment details from its records. Mr B complained to the Council that it used her employment details to wrongly apply for an attachment to earnings order. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation because there is another body better placed to consider this complaint; the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains on behalf of his wife, Mrs B, that the Council has not responded to her complaint about its failure to delete her employment details from its records. Mr B complained to the Council that it used her employment details to wrongly apply for an attachment to earnings order

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered:
• Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation; and
• Mr B’s comments on a draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. In October 2018, Mrs B asked the Council to remove her employment information from its records.
6. The Council applied for an attachment to earnings order on Mrs B’s wages to reclaim an overpayment.
7. Mrs B complained to the Council in July 2019. She asked the Council to remove her employment details from its records. When she did not receive a response, Mr B complained to the Council on her behalf.
8. In August 2019, Mr B had not received a response and he escalated the complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure.
9. The Council responded. It noted their request to remove Mrs B’s employment data from its records. It explained the right of erasure is not an absolute right. It said it kept the information so the Council could carry out its duty of managing benefits. The Council told them Mrs B would only be entitled to have her personal data erased when it was no longer needed by the Council for the purposes for which it was recorded.

Analysis

10. The Council provided evidence it responded to Mr and Mrs B’s complaints in August 2019.
11. The substantive issue is about data protection and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint; the Information Commissioner.
12. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have discontinued the investigation because there is another body better placed to consider this complaint; the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman