Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council officer’s actions when he attended an appointment for his Concessionary Travel Pass application. This is because the crux of the complaint is a data matter which is best considered and decided by the Information Commissioner and the Council has already taken suitable action in response to his complaint about the officer’s conduct.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a Council officer pushed him into providing documents containing personal and private information when he attended an appointment for his Concessionary Travel Pass application. Mr X says he had previously been told he should only need to provide information about his learning difficulties. He says the officer did not listen to him and he felt pushed into providing the Council with documents he did not want it to have and did not think it needed. He complains this was a data breach.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (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 (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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the matters set out in paragraph one, above.
7. The Council considered the matter as an alleged data protection breach. It signposted Mr X to the ICO if he remained dissatisfied with its final response.
8. It considered Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of the officer separately, via its complaints procedure. The Council wrote to Mr X apologising that he felt he had not received the service and support he needed during the appointment and that this caused him confusion. It said a supervisor had spoken to the officer, reinforcing its expectation that staff treat customers with respect and deliver a high standard of service.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the crux of the complaint is about a data matter which is best considered and decided by ICO rather than by this office. It is the body set up to consider complaints about alleged data breaches such as this and so is best placed to consider it. We will not also consider it.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the officer’s conduct. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy via its written apology and action taken. There is nothing further we would add or recommend and so this point does not warrant a further investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is about a data matter best considered and decided by ICO and there is nothing further we would add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation about the officer's conduct during the appointment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman