Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Authority investigated Mr X’s concerns about information it shared with another organisation. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating and there is another body better placed to look at his concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Authority shared false information with another organisation, where he worked voluntarily. Mr X said the Authority did not properly investigate his concerns.
2. Mr X said this led to termination of his voluntary work and the lack of investigation was unfair.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or if there is another body better placed to consider the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X said the Authority shared false information with another organisation, where he worked voluntarily. Mr X said this information related to his conduct.
8. In its complaint response, the Authority said the officer who shared the information was out of work and unable to comment. However, it explained why it believed the officer was acting in good faith and identified it needed to ensure it had a written record of information it shared with other organisations in future.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.
10. We have no jurisdiction to consider the actions of the organisation Mr X worked for, and who removed him as a volunteer. Therefore, we could not carry out a meaningful investigation into the complaint. In so far as the actions of the Authority, who we can investigate, it has already identified remedial action; that is appropriate.
11. In any case, Mr X’s concerns are centred around information sharing and therefore he can make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, who can consider concerns about Mr X’s data rights.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation and there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman