Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his report of fly tipping, and his claim the Council breached data protection matters. This is because it is unlikely that we would find fault in how the Council dealt with the reported fly tipping, and because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with complaints about data protection.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about how the Council dealt with his report of fly tipping outside his property and that the Council disclosed another person’s personal data to him. Mr C says these matters have caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. 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

4. I have considered Mr C’s complaint and the Council’s response. I have invited Mr C to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr C complained to the Council about an instance of fly tipping outside his property, which had been recorded on his CCTV system. He said the rubbish should be removed and the person responsible should be prosecuted.
6. In response to Mr C’s complaint, the Council said it had arranged for a team to attend the site to remove the rubbish and sweep the street.
7. The Council said it reviewed the CCTV footage Mr C had provided, but that there was insufficient evidence to identify those responsible for the fly tipping.
8. In responding to Mr C’s complaint, the Council sent a letter to him which was addressed to someone else and appeared to relate to another complaint. Mr C says that this amounted to a data breach.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation into Mr C’s complaint about how the Council responded to his report of fly tipping.
10. It is unlikely that we would find fault in how the Council dealt with Mr C’s report of fly tipping. Upon receiving Mr C’s complaint, the Council arranged for the rubbish to be cleared and the street cleaned. It also reviewed the evidence and explained why it could not take any enforcement action against those responsible.
11. Mr C may disagree with the approach the Council took in response to his complaint, but that does not mean the Council has done anything wrong.
12. I will also not investigate Mr C’s complaint that the Council breached data protection regulations, by sending him a letter addressed to someone else. This is because I do not consider there to be a good reason why Mr C cannot raise his complaint about this with the Information Commissioner, who is better placed to investigate complaints about data protection.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in how the Council dealt with Mr C’s report of fly tipping, and the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with complaints about data protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman