Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to include Mr X on a local database, registering him as a person of concern. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions and there is another body better placed to consider part of his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X was unhappy the Council decided to include him on its client of concern register, after his interaction with it. He said this has limited his ability to function in society, because of how it affects his ongoing contact with Council staff.

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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)

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. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s decision to include him on its client of concern register after his contact with an officer.
7. The Council’s policy allows it to place persons on a register, to alert other officers who may encounter that person during their work. The policy says a person must be notified that they are included on the register, and a manger must agree their inclusion is appropriate. It also says a person has a right of appeal about that decision.
8. In this case, the Council notified Mr X it had placed him on its register after an interaction with an officer. It told Mr X what this was and wrote to him. It also considered his appeal.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. I have considered the steps the Council took to make its decision to include Mr X on its register. It is unlikely we would find fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
11. Additionally, if Mr X believes the information the Council had to make this decision was wrong, he can make a complaint to the Information Commissioners’ Office, who can consider complaints about General Data Protection Regulation concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault and there is another body better placed to consider part of his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman