Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her personal data because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider these matters. The Council has also accepted some fault and taken action to address this so there is nothing more we could achieve by investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council incorrectly shared her personal data with advocacy organisations. She says the Council shared inaccurate and unnecessary information, and information without her consent, which caused distress and made the advocacy process more difficult.

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 and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X’s complaint concerns how the Council handled and shared her personal data with third parties. Complaints about compliance with data protection legislation, including accuracy, consent, and data minimisation, are matters the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is specifically empowered to consider.
7. The Council has already investigated the concerns and accepted that some information shared may have been inaccurate or unnecessary, and that personal data was shared without appropriate consent in one instance. It apologised, corrected records, and set out steps to improve its processes, including staff training and reviewing data-sharing practices.
8. While Miss X remains dissatisfied, the ICO is better placed to consider whether the Council has complied with its obligations under data protection law and, if necessary, to take regulatory action.
9. The Council has acknowledged fault and taken steps to remedy the issues identified. It is unlikely further investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve a different or more meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with concerns about how the Council handled Miss X’s personal data.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman