Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a ‘Safe and Well’ visit from the Fire and Rescue Service was recorded. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider requests for rectification of data.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Fire and Rescue Service recorded a ‘Safe and Well’ visit. She said the worker wrongly labelled her as a hoarder, without having entered the property, and had added a ‘violence/aggression’ flag, without making clear this related to dogs rather than Mrs X. She said after a further visit the circumstances were labelled correctly.
2. Mrs X said the labels applied were misleading, stigmatising and risked prejudice against her. She said the Council had inaccurate data about her, contrary to data protection legislation. She said it refused to tell her who it had shared this data with, preventing her from correcting inaccurate information held by other sources.
3. Mrs X wanted the Council to amend its records and notify all parties who received inaccurate data of the amendments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
9. The injustice Mrs X claims relates to future potential repercussions resulting from stigma or prejudice. She does not claim any repercussions have already occurred. We cannot consider hypothetical injustice. Mrs X may have experienced some frustration, but not of the significance that would warrant further investigation by the Ombudsman.
10. In any event, the actions Mrs X requests of the Council relate to data rectification. It is open to Mrs X to escalate her concern about data accuracy and sharing to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider requests for rectification of data.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman