Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a member of Council staff. This is because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with complaints about data protection matters.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the conduct of a member of staff whilst Ms X was in a mental health crisis. Ms X says she was treated with hostility, that the member of staff called emergency services without her consent and unlawfully shared her personal information. Ms X says this caused her distress and led to the police forcing their way into her home.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In responding to Ms X’s complaint, the Council spoke to the member of staff in question along with another member of staff working on the day of the incident. The Council found that the member of staff called the emergency services after concerns were raised about Ms X’s wellbeing. During a call with the ambulance services, Ms X left the building so the member of staff called the police after being advised to do so by the ambulance service.
7. The Council concluded that the member of staff acted out of concern for Ms X’s wellbeing and was guided by the ambulance service. The Council carried out a HR investigation into the member of staff but said it could not share the outcome with Ms X. The Council denied unlawfully sharing Ms X’s personal information.
8. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because doing so would not add to the investigation carried out by the Council. The Council has raised the issues with the member of staff through its HR process. This is a reasonable and proportionate response. The Council has fully explained why the member of staff made the decisions they did, we were not privy to the conversations between Ms X and the member of staff and Ms X so could not reach a robust decision on exactly what was said.
9. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider Ms X’s complaint that her personal information was unlawfully shared. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council and the ICO is better placed to deal with complaints about data protection matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman