Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that about a prohibition notice issued by the Fire Authority in 2015 and about a data protection breach. This is because the prohibition notice was issued too long ago and I see no good reason why a complaint could not have been made sooner. Complaints about data breaches are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner's Office.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about a prohibition notice issued by the Fire Authority against a premises he owned in early 2015. Mr X says the notice led to the business that leased the property from him to cease trading which caused Mr X a financial loss. Mr X also complains that the Fire Authority disclosed his personal information to the new owners of the premises.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an authority has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 Authority.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X owned a premises between 1999 and 2019, which he leased to a business. In early 2015, the Fire Authority issued a prohibition notice restricting the amount of people in certain parts of the building. Mr X says the new owners of the building are not subject to such restrictions. The Council says this is because improvements have been made to the building.
8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the issuing of the prohibition notice. This is because these events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why Mr X could not have complained at the time or soon after. I therefore do not consider there to be any good reason to exercise discretion and investigate this matter now.
9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Fire Authority disclosed his personal data in breach of data protection rules. This is because it is reasonable to expect him to raise this with the Information Commissioner, who is better placed to deal with such complaints.
10. Mr X also complaints about how the Fire Authority communicated with him during the complaints process. However, I will also not investigate this because it is not a good use of public funds to investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issues raised.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because prohibition notice was issued too long ago and he can complaint to the Information Commissioner about how his personal data was handled.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman