The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a data breach and about the Council’s actions in relation to its child protection involvement with her family. This is because the data matter is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office and there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint about its child protection actions whilst there are ongoing court proceedings.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about a data breach and about the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint about its child protection actions whilst the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings.
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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not start an investigation if we decide: there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X complained to the Council about a data breach. She said it incorrectly shared her sensitive personal information with a third party. She also complained about its actions in relation to its child protection involvement with her family.
The Council considered Miss X’s complaint about a data breach. It found no evidence it had shared the information and therefore found no evidence of a breach. It signposted Miss X to the ICO should she remain dissatisfied with its response.
The Council told Miss X it would not consider her complaint about its child protection actions at this time because the case is subject to ongoing court proceedings. It told Miss X she could resubmit her complaint once the court proceedings have concluded.
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint about a data breach is a matter for the ICO to consider and decide. The Council has already correctly signposted Miss X to the ICO on this matter. It is the body best placed to consider it. We will not investigate the complaint about the Council’s child protection actions. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider it via its complaints procedure until the court proceedings have concluded. This approach is in line with the statutory guidance to local authorities on the handling of complaints where there are ongoing court proceedings. This is to ensure that the court proceedings, which must take precedence, are not prejudiced by any concurrent complaint investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the data matter is best considered by ICO and there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision not to consider her complaint about child protection matters until the ongoing court proceedings have concluded.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman