Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Council. This is because Mr X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says enforcement agents visited his business premises to pursue a personal debt owed by one of his employees, who I will refer to as Y. He says this caused workplace disruption, distress to staff, and compromised the professional image of his business. He also says the agents breached Y’s confidentiality by discussing their financial circumstances in front of other colleagues. Mr X is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with his complaint.

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 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says the enforcement agents refused to produce official documentation or stop using their body worn cameras, even though his business operates a ‘no filming’ policy. While I recognise Mr X’s concerns about workplace disruption and the adverse impact on staff morale from the presence of the agents, I am satisfied this is not enough to warrant an investigation.
8. Mr X also complains about the Council’s response to his complaint and says its responses were dismissive and he has received no assurances the agents would not visit his business premises again. However, we will not investigate a council’s complaint handling alone when we are not investigating the subject of the complaint. If Mr X remains concerned about future visits he may wish to speak to his employee.
9. Mr X also says the enforcement agents’ actions caused direct injustice to his employee, Y, in their disclosure of their personal financial circumstances to colleagues. However, we do not have consent from Y so we cannot consider this part of the complaint. Complaints about information and data processing are also best directed to the Information Commissioner’s Office so we would not likely investigate them anyway.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered a significant enough personal injustice. We will not look at complaint handling issues as a standalone matter and Mr X does not have consent to complain on behalf of his employee.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman