Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions when dealing with an out of court disposal relating to the complainant’s son. This is because there is another body better placed to consider the complainant’s concerns that the Council breached her confidentiality, and there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs X, complains that, in the course of dealing with an out of court disposal relating to her son, the Council:

• communicated with her via her work email, thereby breaching her confidentiality and privacy; and
• acted in collusion with the police, rather than in her son’s interests.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s son was the subject of a referral to the Council’s Youth Justice Service. The offence leading to the referral was dealt with through an out of court disposal.
6. Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in using her work email address to communicate with her about the matter. The Council has apologised for failing to use Mrs X’s preferred means of contact. But it has denied that it compromised Mrs X’s confidentiality or breached the General Data Protection Regulation.
7. The Ombudsman will not consider this matter. If Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s response, she may bring her concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is better placed then the Ombudsman to consider them.
8. Mrs X further complains that, throughout the process of the out of court disposal, the Council colluded with the police, and that this led to an unfavourable outcome for her son.
9. There are no grounds for us to investigate the Council’s actions. The out of court disposal is a multi-agency process, in the course of which the Council works with the police. I can see no evidence to suggest that the way it did so amounted to fault, or that it led to an outcome which was more unfavourable than would otherwise have been the case.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is another body better placed to consider her concerns that the Council breached her confidentiality, and there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman