Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, made on behalf of his client Mr W, about the Council’s failure to reply to a Subject Access Request, his concern about the security of Mr W’s personal data submitted to the Council, and the Council’s failure to reply to his complaint. The core issues are data disclosure and data handling ones best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office. We will not investigate a council’s complaint handling in isolation when we do not intend to investigate the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr W is the father of two children, whom he is representing in a civil compensation claim with the support of a legal firm. Mr X is Mr W’s legal representative at that firm. Mr X asked the Council for documents using a Subject Access Request (SAR), to gather evidence for the legal action, which is against a third party.
2. Mr X complains the Council has failed to:
1. reply to the SAR from July 2020;
2. confirm it is handling his client’s documents securely;
3. respond to the October 2020 complaint about the lack of response to the SAR.
3. Mr X says the Council’s failures have delayed his pursuit of Mr W’s legal case. He and Mr W have been left unsure about the safety of Mr W’s personal documents, such as a copy of his passport and proof of his address. Mr X wants the Council to provide the requested SAR documents without further delay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe there is another body better placed to consider the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. 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

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

7. The core of Mr X’s complaint is about the Council not responding to the SAR, and Mr X’s concerns about the safety of Mr W’s data. I consider it would be appropriate to expect Mr X to refer the matter to the ICO. I do not consider there are good reasons for us to investigate these complaints instead. I say this because it is the ICO which is better placed to consider and determine these data protection and data management issues. It is the body specifically created by national government to deal with issues relating to the provision and handling of people’s data, and with the proper application of the relevant data legislation and guidance.
8. I also consider the ICO is best placed to achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks for his client. The ICO has powers to order a public body to respond to SARs, and to determine which documents it should provide. The ICO can also consider whether a council has handled personal data in compliance with relevant law and guidance.
9. I note Mr X says the Council failed to respond to his complaint about this matter. But we would not consider it a good use of public resources to investigate a council’s internal complaint handling in isolation where we would not investigate the core issues giving rise to the complaint. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• it would be appropriate to expect Mr X to refer the complaint to the ICO, as the core data issues are ones best dealt with by that body, and there are no good reasons for us to investigate instead;
• we will not investigate a council’s complaint handling in isolation when we do not intend to investigate the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman