Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the poor service she received from the Council when booking her wedding ceremony. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms B to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council’s poor service and the unprofessional manner of officers dealing with her wedding ceremony arrangements caused her stress which has impacted upon her health.

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:

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

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B contacted the Council’s Registry Office about the arrangements she was making for her wedding ceremony. After an initial call and having been provided with information in a way she felt was unhelpful, Ms B called again at a later date.
6. During this second call, when Ms B tried to explain her dissatisfaction with the earlier call, she felt the officer she was speaking to had become annoyed with her and gave her information she did not need rather than information she did. The call ended when the line cut off. Ms B thought the line had dropped and she expected the officer to call her back. The officer thought Ms B had ended the call.
7. Ms B decided to make a complaint to the Council and included as part of it the fact that the registry office had contacted staff at the venue she would be holding her wedding celebrations. She complained this was a breach of confidentiality.
8. The Council responded to her complaint and explained that it thought there had been a misunderstanding about what Ms B had been asking about and that the officer she spoke to during her second call had been trying to set out the options available to her when the connection was lost. The response set out in detail the various aspects of the ceremony requirements and apologised if this had not been clearly done during the call.
9. At the second stage of its complaints procedure, the Council went through the different parts of Ms B’s complaint but did not uphold any of them. It also advised Ms B that it did not consider there had been a data breach by officers contacting the wedding venue staff. However, it provided her with details of the Information Commissioner’s Office if she wanted to take the matter further. At its conclusion, due the omission of the word “not”, the letter stated “For the reasons stated above I do consider the Council has acted improperly. I am therefore unable to uphold your complaint”.

Assessment

10. I understand Ms B was left feeling dissatisfied following her telephone calls to the registry office, and with the Council’s responses to her complaint. However, it does appear that there was simply a misunderstanding between the parties as to what information was being sought by Ms B during her calls.
11. While I note the typographical omission might have confused Ms B, I consider what had gone before to have been clear that no part of the complaint had been upheld. I do not consider there is sufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms B to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman or that an investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome.
12. If Ms B believes there has been a data breach by the Council, she can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Ms B to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman