Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council sharing his information or how it chose to manage his contact with it. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the right organisation to deal with data-sharing concerns and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council shared information with a third party and about how the Council has managed his communications.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council shared information with his employer. The Council explained why it shared the information. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to consider complaints about how organisations use a person’s information. It is reasonable for Mr X to take his complaint about information sharing to the Information Commissioner.
8. The Council told Mr X it would manage his contact under the "unreasonably persistent complainants" section of its complaints policy due to what it deemed, unreasonably persistent behaviour. This meant restricting Mr X’s contact with individual officers and requesting that he contacts a dedicated mailbox for specific concerns. Mr X disagreed with this decision.
9. I will not investigate this complaint further because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision as it was in in line with its policy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better suited to deal with his complaint about information sharing and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman