Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide information the complainant requested. It is reasonable to expect them to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office about this. And, as the Council confirms the Community Protection Warning has been rescinded, it is unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council refuses to provide her with information which led to it sending her a Community Protection Warning (CPW) letter.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to:
• rescind the CPW letter
• provide her with all the information she has requested
• remove all complaints made about her by third parties whom she says are vexatious.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information and data protection. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complains the Council refuses to provide her with information she has requested. She wants details of all complaints made about her by third parties and all her personal data held by the Council.
8. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to refer her complaint that the Council has failed to disclose information which she is entitled to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). If the ICO does not find fault with the Council, she can appeal to the Information Tribunal. The ICO has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and General Data Protection Regulations.
9. The Council has also confirmed that it has not received any further complaints about her and has withdrawn the CPW. Therefore, I consider further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
10. I acknowledge the Council delayed in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. It has apologised for the delay. We expect the Council to follow its published complaints procedure. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• It is reasonable to expect her to direct her complaints about a failure to provide information to the ICO; and
• An investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman