Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of an email written by a Council officer. This is because there is no evidence that the complainant has suffered a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about the contents of an email that a Council officer sent to him in relation to a licensing application that Mr X made on behalf of a client. Mr X says the comments were unfounded and led to him instructing a barrister to complete the application process at an additional cost. Mr X also complains that the Council refused to respond to his Freedom of Information requests.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X submitted a licensing application on behalf of one of his clients. The Council contacted him to inform him that there was an error on the application. Mr X disputed this and suggested a claim for damages may be made. A Council officer replied suggesting that the only claim for damages would be against the person who completed the application. The officer advised Mr X of what steps he needed to complete for the application to proceed.
7. I will not investigate this complaint. Whilst Mr X may be unhappy with the email from the officer, I see nothing in the contents to cause Mr X a significant injustice. The Council clearly explained to Mr X what steps he needed to complete for his application to proceed, I see no reason why the Council would be liable for the costs of a barrister that Mr X made the decision to appoint.
8. Finally, I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to respond to his Freedom of Information requests. It is reasonable to expect him to raise this matter with the Information Commissioner who is best placed to deal with such complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence that he has suffered a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman