Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has recorded inaccurate information about Ms X. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter, and any injustice caused to Ms X by poor communication is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council has recorded inaccurate information about her in an assessment. She also complains that communication from the Council has been poor and that it has failed to respond to her complaint about these matters.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We will not investigate this complaint. Ms X has the right to ask the Council to make changes to inaccurate information held about her. It is then for the Council to ensure its records are ‘rectified’. This means any factual inaccuracies are corrected. If the Council refuses to do so, Ms X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
7. Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider if the Council should change its records. I have seen no good reason the Ombudsman should investigate instead of the ICO, therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
8. Ms X also complains about poor communciation from the Council’s childrens services. Whilst this may be frustrating for Ms X, this alone is not a signifianct enough injustice to warrant our investigation.
9. Finally, Ms X complains about how the Council dealt with her complaint. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter. Any injustice caused to Ms X by poor communication is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman