The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a visit by the Council to check Mr X’s welfare was a breach of his personal data. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained after the Council visited him to check on his welfare. He said it was a breach of his personal data. Mr X also complained the Council failed to provide him financial support and had racially discriminated against him. He said the Council’s actions had caused him stress and anxiety. He wants the Council to financially compensate him.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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 sent the Council multiple emails asking about financial support. In those emails he referred to his wellbeing. The Council was concerned for Mr X’s welfare and passed his details to its internal Community Safety Team. The Community Safety Team visited Mr X. Following that, Mr X complained the Council had breached his personal data by sharing this information with the team.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to complete a welfare visit. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We would not be critical of the Council visiting Mr X as it had safeguarding concerns. Also, I do not consider the Council visiting Mr X to check on his welfare has caused him a significant injustice. If Mr X believes the Council has breached data protection legislation it would be reasonable for him to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO). The ICO considers complaints about data protection.
We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about financial support provided by the Council. The Council’s complaint response confirms the Council did provide Mr X financial support from late 2020 to April 2021 through its Winter Grant scheme. As the support the Council provided occurred more than twelve months ago, this is a late complaint, and we will not investigate. It was reasonable for Mr X to complain to us sooner if he was unhappy with the support the Council provided. Even if the complaint was not later, we would not investigate as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s communication. He said it racially discriminated against his when an officer did not telephone him. I have reviewed the Council’s email contact with Mr X. There is no significant delay in its response to his contact and it offered him the opportunity to speak to a relevant officer about his financial support concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman