Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s response to a request for information and its response to Mr X’s contact. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to deal with complaints about how organisations handle requests for information. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider in its related actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Care Provider failed to respond to his requests for information and communication relating to his mother (Mrs Y). He said the matter caused him significant distress and there could have been a financial impact. He wanted the Care Provider to provide him information, apologise and compensate him.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Access to information

6. Mr X’s complaint about how the Care Provider responded when he asked for information about his mother is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is the body that deals with concerns about how organisations handle people’s data. There is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.

Other matters

7. Mr X’s complaint is also related to his attempts to contact the Care Provider. He says it did not respond to his requests. The Care Provider says it did. In any event, there is insufficient evidence of fault in this respect, or evidence this in itself would have caused Mr X a significant injustice that would warrant further consideration of these peripheral matters, when the central matter is one for the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is best referred to the Information Commissioners Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman