The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Care Provider because it is better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Care Provider failed to provide important evidence during an inquest into his father’s death. Mr X says this evidence is linked to the cause of death. Mr X seeks clear conclusion in the inquest verdict and wants the care provider to supply the requested information.
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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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.
We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B)) We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council/organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The provision of evidence to the coroner’s inquest is a matter for the coroner and it is reasonable for Mr X to raise this concern with the coroner. Further, the coroner’s conduct of the inquest is not within our jurisdiction.
If Mr X feels the Care Provider is withholding information, then it is reasonable to expect him to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). It is better placed to investigate this matter.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matter is better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman