The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to provide a copy of meeting notes, about the Council’s handling of his subject access request, and about untrue statements made about him during the meeting. This is because there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council failed to provide a copy of meeting notes and that he was forced to submit a subject access request (SAR) to get a copy of the notes. He also complains about the content of the documents received following his SAR, and that untrue statements were made about him.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide: we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
A multi-agency resources panel (MARP) met to discuss Mr X’s daughter. This panel considers and makes decisions for complex care packages.
Mr X asked the Council to provide a copy of the minutes of this panel meeting. However, the Council failed to provide this. As result, Mr X felt forced to make a subject access request (SAR).
The Council has accepted there was delay in providing Mr X with a copy of the panel meeting minutes. This was eventually provided in response Mr X’s SAR. An investigation is not justified on this point as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.
Mr X said the documents received following the SAR showed total disregard for them as parents. He referred to internal emails containing discussion about how the meeting notes should be presented to them. He also complained untrue statements were made by the participants during the meeting.
An investigation is not justified as there is a better body better placed to consider Mr X’s complaints. Mr X is unhappy with the comments made about him during the meeting, which he considers to be untrue. Mr X has the right to rectification if he believes the officer has made inaccurate or untrue statements about him. He can ask the Council to update records, or add information to the records, to clarify that the statement is untrue. If the Council refuses, he can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Further, Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s discussions about how the information should be presented to him. Therefore, this is a complaint about the Council’s handling of his SAR. If Mr X considers the Council has not provided information appropriately in line with its duties under data protection legislation, then he should complain to the ICO.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. Further, an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman