Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the misconduct of a social worker and the Council’s failure to handle Mr X’s complaint fairly. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council handled his complaint. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider the data protection issue, the courts are best placed to consider claims for compensation and Social work England are better placed to consider concerns about a social worker’s practice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the misconduct of a social worker and the Council’s failure to handle his complaint fairly. He says the social worker used his personal data to locate him at work and disclosed highly sensitive information. Mr X wants the Council to carry out an investigation and provide him with the outcome, take disciplinary action, apologise, address the data protection concerns and pay him compensation.

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’s Office (ICO) 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.)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Following Mr X’s complaint to the Council, he asked what measures the Council would put in place and asked for an investigation. The Council explained it had carried out an internal investigation but could not disclose further details with Mr X.
8. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to deal with matters via its internal process. As matters relate to data protection, it was entitled to take this approach.
9. We would normally expect someone complaining about a data protection breach to take the matter to the ICO, which is the body best placed to consider and decide such complaints. There is not a reason in this case for us to investigate this matter instead. Mr X is seeking a written copy of the Council’s investigation and its findings. This is not something we could achieve.
10. Mr X also requests compensation from the Council. The ICO cannot award compensation. While we can recommend financial remedies when appropriate, we cannot award significant sums in compensation in the way the courts can. Given this, the courts are best placed to consider Mr X’s claim for compensation.
11. We cannot decide whether a social worker has committed professional misconduct or impose disciplinary sanctions. Social Work England is the body responsible for considering concerns about a social workers practice and is better placed to consider that part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council handled his complaint. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider the data protection issue; the courts are best placed to consider compensation claims and Social Work England are better placed to consider concerns about a social workers practice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman