Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council wrongly shared her personal data when it sent letters for her to properties she rents to tenants. This is because Miss B may complain to the Information Commissioner, which is in the best position to consider the matter. Also, it is reasonable for Miss B to put in a claim for compensation to the county court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Miss B, complains the Council wrongly shared her personal data when it sent letters addressed to her to four properties which she rents to tenants. Miss B says her tenants became aware of confidential information which they used to harass and threaten her, and they also withheld rent payments. Miss B says the Council’s response to her complaint was poor and the stage 2 response was sent to one of the addresses she had complained about. Miss B would like the Council to: apologise; pay her compensation; clarify how it obtained the addresses; and, correct its contact details for her.

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 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Miss B’s complaint form and the supporting information she sent. I have also shared a draft version of this statement with Miss B and invited her comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

6. I find we should not investigate Miss B’s complaint. This is because there is another body – the Information Commissioner – which is better placed to consider Miss B’s complaint.
7. Miss B’s complaint is about a data protection matter. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to complain to the Information Commissioner. This is because the Information Commissioner is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. The Information Commissioner has far wider powers than the Ombudsman if it finds a council has failed in its duties as a data controller. These powers include issuing fines – the Ombudsman has no such powers.
8. In addition, Miss B may put in a claim for compensation to the county court for the distress she says she suffered because of the alleged data protection breach. I find the court is in the best position to consider such a claim, particularly because of the seriousness of the distress Miss B says she suffered. In addition, unlike the Ombudsman, the court has the power to order the Council to pay compensation. So, I find it is reasonable for Miss B to put in a compensation claim to the county court.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the issues Miss B complains about. Also, Miss B may put in a claim for compensation to the county court and it is reasonable for her to do this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman