Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unauthorised disclosure of personal data. We could add nothing further to the Council’s response, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s unauthorised disclosure of his personal data. He says he is concerned about the reputational impact this has on him both personally and professionally.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigates complaints about data protection breaches and misuse of personal information.
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)
6. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the Mr Y and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr Y complained to the Council about it disclosing his personal data. The Council investigated this and accepted that Mr Ys name was used in correspondence where it should not have been. It apologised to Mr Y and said it had redacted information online so there is no reference to him. The Council considered whether it believed it was necessary to report the incident to the ICO but concluded it was not. We could add nothing further to the Council’s response. I also determine the ICO is better placed to consider this complaint, therefore we will not investigate this complaint.
10. I acknowledge the Council did not report the incident to the ICO. However, Mr Y still has a right to raise these data protection concerns to the ICO himself.
11. I understand Mr Y believes the Council should award him compensation; however, this is not for the Ombudsman to determine. Mr Y can pursue the matter through the court, if he wishes, and it is reasonable to expect him to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we could add nothing further to the Council’s response, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman