The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an email a Care Provider sent the Council. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the content of an email her Care Provider had sent the Council. She said that email was sent to her in error. She now feels embarrassed and vulnerable because of what was written about her in that email. She wants the Council to arrange a meeting with the Care Provider, apologise and remove the email from their records.
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 or continue an investigation if we decide: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In its response to Miss X, the Care Provider said it had been experiencing difficulties in providing her care; therefore, it had contacted the Council for help in resolving the problem. It said it wanted to do this to ensure it continued to meet Miss X’s care needs. The Care Provider apologised that Miss X received a copy of the email. It said that was not its intention. The Care Provider confirmed that the Council had arranged a different company to provide her on-going package of care.
The Council initially agreed to hold a meeting between the Care Provider and Miss X. However, it decided that would not be appropriate, as the representative of the Care Provider attending the meeting was the recipient of Miss X’s complaint. The Council wrote to Miss X and said it had addressed the matter with the Care Provider.
Although Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate this complaint further. Firstly, we would not be critical of a Care Provider contacting the Council if it was experiencing difficulties in providing care. Miss X may disagree with the Care Provider’s concerns, however, it confirmed these were based on feedback from care staff. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault in it sending the email to justify our involvement.
The Council has asked the Care Provider to remind staff to check who they are sending emails to. That is appropriate to address Miss X’s concerns about the email being sent to incorrect recipients. The Care Provider has also apologised for this. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
If Miss X remains unhappy about how the Care Provider has handled her personal data, or believes the Council hods inaccurate information about her, it would be appropriate for her to contact the Information Commissioners Officer (ICO). The ICO is best placed to dealt with complaints about data protection.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman