Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about sharing Mrs Y’s data because there is insufficient evidence of fault and the Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to consider this. The Council has apologised for a delay in responding to Mr X’s emails, which is appropriate and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s lack of response to a subject access request. He wants the Council to send him documents relating to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessment for his mother, which he believes he is entitled to as he holds a Lasting Power of Attorney for his mother.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said he made a subject access request for documents relating to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessment for his mother, Mrs Y, in October 2024. He believes he is entitled to that information because he holds a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for her health and welfare. He said the reason for the request was that he was concerned the Council had inappropriately asked for a DoLS authorisation without his agreement.
6. Mr X told us the Council declined to disclose the information he asked for in November 2024. In December 2024, he said he asked the Council to confirm whether there had been a data breach, but it did not respond. In February 2025, he provided Mrs Y’s consent for the Council to share information with him. He complained that, despite sending a further email to the Council in May 2025, it has not responded to him or provided the information he asked for.
7. In its complaint response, the Council explained that it shared information with Mr X in 2023 because, at that time, Mrs Y was deemed not to have capacity, and he held an LPA. However, a further assessment in 2024 indicated she did have capacity, which meant it could not share information about her without her consent. It acknowledged that Mr X sent it a signed paper in February 2025 but said it was not clear from that whether Mrs Y was agreeing to full disclosure of all data. It said it needed to clarify this and apologised for its delay in doing so after receiving the initial consent in February 2025. It also apologised for a failure to respond to emails.
8. The Council also clarified that, because Mrs Y was assessed as having capacity to make decisions about her care, it did not need to ask for a DoLS authorisation. It said it had sent the assessment to Mrs Y, who could share it with Mr X if she wished to do so.
9. There is no indication that the Council has shared or refused to share information about Mrs Y inappropriately. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating further. In any case, if Mr X remains concerned, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider whether the Council has complied with data protection law.
10. The Council accepted a delay in responding to Mr X’s emails and clarifying with Mrs Y what information she was agreeing to share with Mr X. This is appropriate to remedy any injustice caused and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to sharing data and the Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to consider this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman