Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint that the Council holds inaccurate information on him and that his first name was contained in court documents. The Council has not caused Mr Y injustice. The production of documents for court in a criminal case is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains that the Council has told other agencies that his son, Mr X, interfered in a police investigation. Mr X was prosecuted in the Crown Court in 2015 and acquitted. Mr Y says the court documents give his name as the middle name of his son. Mr Y says that anyone seeing the information will assume that he was accused of interfering with a police investigation. He says he and his son did not interfere in the police investigation. Mr Y says the Council has caused him stress and harmed his 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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about action taken by the police in connection with the investigation or prevention of crime. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 2/3, as amended)
5. 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

6. I have considered Mr Y’s information and comments and communications following my draft decision statement. I have discussed the complaint with Mr Y by telephone. I have discussed with Mr X his complaints and what has happened. I have considered the information in our previous decision on the Council’s actions regarding Mr X (16 008 436).

Back to top

What I found

7. In 2015 and 2016 concerns arose about Mr X’s suitability to work with children. Mr X was prosecuted and acquitted at the Crown Court. In 2016 the Council’s LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer), who deals with cases involving allegations against people who work with children, closed the case. Those actions were the subject of an earlier complaint to the Ombudsman.
8. In 2020 a further LADO case involving Mr X was opened. Mr X has complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s recent involvement and that of Hounslow Council.

Analysis

9. I will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint for the following reasons:
10. The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to Mr Y arising from the alleged mistake with his son’s middle name. It is not likely that someone would confuse Mr Y for his son and no evidence this has caused a problem.
11. To the extent that this complaint involves evidence which was part of a court case it is outside our jurisdiction (see paragraph 3). We cannot investigate the actions of the police in relation to crime (see paragraph 4) or the crown prosecution service which is not a body within our jurisdiction. We cannot investigate the evidence those agencies provided to court.
12. If the Council holds inaccurate information on Mr Y it is reasonable for him to go to the Information Commissioner (see paragraph 5). That office has powers regarding the handling of personal data.
13. The Ombudsman has registered complaints in Mr X’s name regarding the recent actions of the LADO’s in two councils. This statement is a decision on Mr Y’s complaint about how he has been affected. Whether the Council recently gave inaccurate evidence to other agencies about Mr X or caused him injustice is part of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint that the Council holds inaccurate information on him and that his first name was used in court documents. The Council has not caused Mr Y an injustice. The production of documents for court in a criminal case is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman