Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaint. The substantive matters are better considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Any injustice relating to the Council’s complaint handling is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council handled her complaint about data processing.
2. She says she has been denied a fair process and has been caused anxiety and distress.
3. She wants the Council to respond properly to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X made a subject access request (SAR) to the Council. She was unhappy with its response and complained using the corporate complaints procedures. The Council registered her complaint at Stage 1 of the procedures.
8. The Council responded under its ‘SAR Internal Review’ process (which is different to the corporate procedures) and upheld her complaints. It also directed her to the Information Commissioner’s Office if she wished to complain about the Council’s actions.
9. Ms X was unhappy because she wanted her complaint to be considered via the corporate complaints process. She said she had received a stage 1 acknowledgement and wanted the Council to honour this.
10. The Council responded and said it did not handle SAR complaints through its corporate procedures. It had issued a stage 1 acknowledgement in error and apologised. It said it would escalate Ms X’s complaint to stage 2 but this would only look at the Council’s error in registering her complaint through the corporate procedures.
11. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to us.
12. We will not look at this complaint. The substantive matters relate to data processing and the Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to deal with that type of complaint. The Council has already advised Ms X of this.
13. We will not investigate Ms X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s complaints handling. We define significant injustice as serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider. There is no evidence Ms X has experienced these levels of injustice in relation to how the Council handled her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman