Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly shared her personal data with the police. This is because any injustice suffered by Ms X did not flow from Council fault. The Ombudsman will also not investigate her complaint about information provided by the Council to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is because the ICO would be the appropriate body to deal with her complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council discriminated against her and abused their power because it falsely told the police she had threatened to commit suicide. As a result, the police forced entry to her property and left her with a broken door.
2. Ms X also complains the Council failed to provide all the information she asked for via a subject access request. She says the Council lied to the Information Commissioner (ICO).
3. Ms X has said that this has caused her mental health to suffer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the complaint made by Ms X, the complaint correspondence provided by the Council and her response to the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. As a result of information provided by the Council to the Police, the Police attended Ms X’s property in February 2019 and when she did not answer the door, they forced entry. Ms X complains the Council lied to the Police about the content of an email she sent them to get them to go to her property in a deliberate attempt to bully, intimidate and victimise her.
7. The Council says that following Ms X’s email a decision was taken to pass the matter to the Adult Social Care Community Mental Health Team and to contact the police. This was because the content implied Ms X could be contemplating harming herself.
8. The Council accepts it did not contact the police until 12 February 2019. It apologised for its delay but stated it couldn’t find any evidence to suggest anything other than concern for Ms X.
9.  
10. By law the Council had duty to consider Ms X’s wellbeing and share any concerns about it to a relevant agency, including the police if necessary. The decision to force entry into Ms X’s property was made by the police and not the Council. Therefore, the Council is not responsible for the broken door or any effect this had on Ms X’s health. (Care Act 2015, section 42)
11. I accept the Council took four days to report the issue to the police. However, this is not evidence the Council was not being genuine. In any case there is no evidence to suggest the police would not have acted the same way had the Council reported its concerns on the day Ms X sent her email.
12. Ms X has also complained the Council failed to provide all the information she requested under a subject access request.
13. The ICO is best placed to consider whether the Council lied to it or not, and to decide if this affected the decision on her case. The ICO has much wider powers than the Ombudsman to act if it finds the Council lied and failed to produce all the information Ms X asked for. Therefore, it would be reasonable for Ms X to complain again to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence the injustice suffered by Ms X was caused by the Council, or that the Council was at fault. It would also be reasonable for Ms X to complain again to the ICO about the Council’s alleged failure to provide all the information she requested.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman