Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about someone filming Miss X. This is mainly because the Information Commissioner is better placed than us to deal with the matter.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that someone acting for the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (‘the Authority’) acted wrongly by filming her. She also complains about how the Authority and its contractor handled her report of the matter and her formal complaint.

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 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Authority used a contractor to survey members of the public. An interviewer conducting the survey made a video recording of Miss X and her home.
7. The main points behind Miss X’s complaint are: whether the incident amounted to a breach of data protection and data handling law; whether the Authority and its contractor dealt properly with the matter, including ensuring deletion of the video from the interviewer’s mobile telephone and ensuring copies were not stored elsewhere; whether the Authority or its contractor owned the telephone used to record Miss X; and whether the Authority has done enough to prevent a repetition. Those points are essentially about the handling of Miss X’s personal data (her image, voice and home) and the robustness of the Authority’s and its contractor’s data-handling arrangements generally for such matters. Those are points the Information Commissioner could decide.
8. The Information Commissioner has the expertise to decide these matters and to recommend any changes it considers necessary. So it is more suitable for the Information Commissioner than us to consider this complaint. In the circumstances, I do not see good reason for us to investigate.
9. Miss X is also dissatisfied with how the Authority handled her complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The substantive points are more properly matters for the Information Commissioner to decide. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Authority’s complaint-handling by itself.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman