Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council regarding its communication with Mr B. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault having caused a significant injustice to warrant an ombudsman’s investigation. Further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s responses and it would be reasonable for Mr B to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider his complaints about being denied access to information he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained the Council has misled him and is unprofessional in its dealings with him. Mr B says the Council has discriminated against him because it requested consents it did not require of other people, failed to respond to Freedom of Information (FOI) and Subject Access Requests (SAR), failed to respond to letters and complaints he sent the Council and failed to share conclusions with him about his specific complaints regarding individual staff members.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B complained about the way he was treated by individuals in the Council.
7. The Council explained it cannot provide Mr B with specific comments and details about individuals who work in the Council and says whilst it takes on board concerns about training needs and disciplinary actions, it has a duty to safeguard personal details and data of employees. It apologised for the delay in responding to his complaints and advised it will not correspond further with him on this matter. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated. Neither the Council nor the Ombudsman can provide Mr B with personal details about Council staff he wants.
8. Mr B says the Council has discriminated against him and requested consents be put in place so he can be given information about his father, which have not been requested of others. It is not fault for the Council to decide what consents it needs.
9. Mr B says the Council has not provided the information he requested under FOI and SAR legislation. It would be reasonable for Mr B to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider whether he should have access to the information he wants but the Council is refusing to give him.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault having caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman