Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Mr X’s family. This is because the Council has corrected the inaccurate information and apologised. This is an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council incorrectly sharing information with him because he can submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner about any alleged data breach. We cannot investigate Mr X’s concerns about police actions and recordings as we cannot investigate complaints about the actions of police.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• Told him the name of the family member that made a referral to children’s services regarding his child. He said this strained family relations.
• Included historical allegations about him in a report which were not true.
• Recorded incorrect information in its report regarding his child.
• Used the wrong pronouns and misspelt the name of his child in its report.
• Contacted him and mistakenly began to divulge information thinking he was someone else.
2. Mr X said that the Council’s actions have caused him distress and negatively impacted on his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council completed an assessment of Mr X’s family after it received a referral to its children’s services from another member of the family. The referrer originally wished to remain anonymous, but later changed their mind. Mr X said because the Council revealed the identity of the referrer there has been a breakdown in the family relationship. The Council said it shared the information in the interests of transparency.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the original referrer changed their mind about being anonymous.
10. Mr X said that the Council’s report included incorrect information from the police about a historical allegation against him. The Council checked the police records and verified the details. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council because its report was based on information held by the police. If Mr X believes the police recorded this information incorrectly, he can contact them directly.
11. Mr X said the Council incorrectly recorded information about a crime involving his child. The Council copied the information directly from a police record. The Council spoke with the police who said their records were incorrect. The Council amended its report. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council because it took appropriate action to verify the accuracy of the information and updated its report when it found it was incorrect.
12. The police apologised, through the Council, for the incorrect information being recorded. We cannot look at the conduct of the police. Mr X could submit a complaint to the police regarding the inaccurate recording.
13. Mr X said the Council’s report referred to his child by the wrong pronouns and misspelt her name. The Council apologised for these errors and amended its report. The Council’s actions are enough to remedy any injustice that these errors caused, and any further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
14. Mr X said a Council officer contacted him and mistakenly began to disclose information thinking he was someone else and did not verify his identity. The Council apologised and said it will provide further training for the officer. This has not caused Mr X an injustice as it was not his personal information which was shared without permission. If Mr X is concerned about what happened he may complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has taken appropriate action to correct its records and has apologised. Mr X can approach the Information Commissioner regarding the alleged data breach as they are better placed to investigate complaints of this type.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman