The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council officer being rude to him. Mr X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. We will not investigate his further complaint about the Council recording inaccurate information in a report. This part of his complaint is better placed with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The complaint
Mr X complained a Council officer was rude and made derogatory comments towards him in his workplace. The officer was carrying out their duties for the Council at the time.
Mr X also said the Council included inaccurate information in a report about the incident.
Mr X said the matters caused distress.
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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or (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
Mr X complained a Council officer, while carrying out their duties, was rude and made derogatory comments about him.
In its complaint response the Council apologised for the actions of its officer. It said the incident would be considered via its internal HR processes.
Mr X said he accepted the apology but later received a copy of a report about the incident. Mr X said the report included inaccurate information about his actions.
We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation.
The available evidence does not suggest Mr X suffered an injustice which meets the threshold for our involvement, due to the actions of the Council officer and so we will not investigate.
Mr X has the right to ask for his records to be ‘rectified’. This means any factual inaccuracies are corrected. Mr X can use this process to request the report is corrected.
If the Council refuses to do so, he can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). 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 and so we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because his claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement and part of it is better placed with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman