Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a memo held by the Council which the complainant says is inaccurate. This is because the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council holds a memo which contains defamatory and inaccurate information about him. Mr X wants the Council to destroy the memo, apologise, and pay compensation for the distress it has caused.

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 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 (ICO) 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 read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Right to rectification

5. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDRP) gives someone the right to have personal information rectified. Organisations must rectify any inaccurate personal information that they hold.

What happened

6. In 2001 a Council officer wrote a memo in which he described Mr X as being difficult and fastidious. Mr X disagrees with the memo. He reached an agreement with the Council that it could retain the memo provided it was balanced by a positive character reference.
7. The positive reference was subsequently destroyed in accordance with the Council’s data retention policy. Mr X found out that the memo was no longer held in conjunction with the positive statement. He asked the Council to destroy the memo under his right to rectification.
8. In response, the Council explained the memo was written 19 years ago and reflects the opinion of the officer who wrote it. It accepts Mr X disagrees with the view expressed but the memo accurately reflects the view of the officer at the time of writing. The Council said the memo has no bearing on services currently offered to Mr X. The Council said it would put a copy of its response, on the file, to show that Mr X disagrees with the memo.
9. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s response. He has withdrawn consent for the Council to hold the memo. He says the Council is not complying with GDPR. He wants the Council to destroy the memo, apologise and pay compensation. He says the Council has not explained why it has refused to destroy the data.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because Mr X can complain to the ICO. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to contact the ICO because it is the appropriate body to consider complaints about GDPR and the right to rectification. The ICO can decide if the Council has handled Mr X’s rectification request correctly or adequately explained why it has declined his request to delete the memo. The issues are all about data handling which is a matter for the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because Mr X can complain to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman