Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council declining to send a statement of Mr Y’s finances. It has now proposed to provide this to Mr Y. There is nothing further we could achieve, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to deal with concerns about how organisations handle people’s data.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the council refused to send financial statements to her brother, Mr Y, whose finances it manages. She says the Council has suggested it is her who wants to see the statements, but she is simply helping her brother to access this information. She wants the Council to send her brother his information.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider the 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 Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X’s complaint is about the Council’s refusal to provide statements of Mr Y’s finances. Mrs X says the Council wrongly suggested it was her who wanted the statements, when she is instead simply supporting her brother to access them.
8. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the Council proposed to send a statement of the last year’s finances to Mr Y. It has therefore provided the remedy Mrs X sought from complaining. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not be proportionate and would not achieve anything further.
9. In any event, the Information Commissioner is usually best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle requests for information. Given that there is not a wider complaint within our jurisdiction, there would not be a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.
10. Mrs X has raised further queries in her communications with us, which I have passed on to the Council so that it can address her further request for information. A request made by the person to whom the information relates is handled as a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act. Requests by a third party are normally considered under the Freedom of Information Act. It is open to Mr Y to make a Subject Access Request. It is open to Mr Y and Mrs X to contact the Information Commissioner should they be dissatisfied with the Council’s response to their requests.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the Council has now agreed to take the action she sought from complaining to us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman