Illegal Council Activity?

[Allusernamestakenbutthis]

Is it illegal (for this thread I will ask is it unreasonable) for a civil servant to take information from a well-meaning phone conversation and then incorrectly call and convey it to a another member of public therefore causing considerable damage to the family? Obviously I cannot disclose what the conversation was about only that it was brief, ambiguous and 100% well meaning (and could be proved if recorded) and has been dramatically distorted by a civil servant. This has caused considerable damage to the whole family as they have implied it is a certain family member but not revealed/ incorrectly suggested who it is. Legal action is being considered, so any comments from a legal point of view much appreciated.

I have checked and the department does come under the civil service. I understand that the conversation was in strictest confidence as the employee could have lost their job. Assuming it's illegal I am wondering if I could confidentially talk directly to this person and have them clarify and clear up the mess they have caused.

Thankyou all for your comments. I am sorry this is so vague, all I can say is the initial call was to clarify a legal technicality that could potentially harm a family member/members (who is being controlled) in the future. The council member called the person we believe is controlling the family member and has 100% distorted the information so it is a completely different message than was conveyed. Cant say more, sorry.

I'm not sure focussing on whether or not it's illegal is a helpful distinction in terms of the resolution you seem to be seeking. If it is, (whatever it) is you need to report it. But betraying a confidence or sharing information is unlikely to be a criminal matter.

As a pp suggested, it would be really helpful if you could provide more information even just by a similar but different enough example to avoid it being outing. You won't get helpful advice otherwise, it's just not informed enough.

Ah, cross posted. How do you know they twisted the info, surely you're receiving all this third hand via the individual they called? Is someone unsafe or possible committing an offence (thinking, HMRC, tax fraud)?

Whichever department it is, it sounds like safeguarding.
I agree with pp. The focus must be the family member who needs help rather than whether the person asked to initially deal with the info acted inappropriately or not.

@Scorpio Absolutely, is someone unsafe/at risk? That needs to be the priority. The conduct of the official is secondary.

@triciamcmillan yes it's possible the person we believe is controlling the family member has twisted the information, but apparently the conversation was taped. I have not heard the recording.

It is not safeguarding, but I guess it may become a safeguarding issue in future as it's another example of something being used to control a person who is being further and further alienated from their family.

Is the individual you are concerned about vulnerable? Are they being coerced, threatened, abused?

I’m even more confused now. No council officers are civil servants. You now describe the person as a council member - i.e. an elected councillor. So the implication is that a civil servant working in a government department is also an elected member. I don’t think that’s allowed, as it could be a conflict of interest, but anyway, I’ll assume it’s true for the sake of this comment.

You need to be clear about which capacity you spoke to that person in - was it as a councillor, in which case you go through the local government complaints procedure; or in their day job capacity, in which case civil service codes would apply?

So it sounds to me like...
Family member 1 phoned Family Member 2 as they had knowledge due to their job which happens to be in the Civil Service. Family Member 2 had concerns as a result of the conversation and phoned the council. Council phoned Family Member 1.
The clear distinction here will be whether Family Member 2 was acting in their role as a Civil Servant or as a concerned member of the public.
For example I'm a Civil Servant and I rang the council to report a highways issue. This was not part of my role as a Civil Servant I just happen to be one and work in a role that has nothing to do with roads.
Now if I worked for the Highways Dept and rang the council about an issue about roads but was nothing to do with my role it starts to get a bit murky!

@tricialmcmillan Yes, the whole (extended) family believes that someone very dear to us is being conned out if their life savings, and this does have an impact on vulnerable people. This has not been mentioned to anyone on the council. The call was to clarify a small technicality in a legal document that could protect their future.

You are right it has nothing to do with whether the council worker has acted illegally, and there is no intention to sue etc however I am carefully looking at options to protect the people involved.

As every other poster has said, it’s far too vague and you’re giving no information at all. Was it a civil servant or was it a council worker (not the same thing)? You say the message conveyed “damage” to the family, was that actual damage as in someone getting divorced or thrown out of the family home or just a bit of a bust up?

I hope you can sort this because you won’t really get any help from Mumsnet, as much as we want to help.

@startrekredshirt yes the information the (council) person allegedly disclosed to the person we believe to be controlling this family member could lead to them losing their home, life savings and alienation from the family that can protect them; essentially assisting this person in doing so. It could also be that this controlling person has made it all up, but we have been told there is a recording so until we hear it we dont know for sure.

Under data protection though you won’t get to hear the recording unless you are a legal guardian of the person concerned.