Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to Mr X’s reports of breaches of the Avian Flu Regulations. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s investigation into his reports of breaches of the Avian Flu Regulations and about its handling of his complaint about this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• 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))

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Concerned about breaches of the Avian Flu Regulations, Mr X reported his concerns to the Council. The Council investigated and, dissatisfied with the outcome of its investigation, Mr X raised a complaint about its handling of matters.
7. The Council’s investigation into his complaint concluded it had considered the evidence presented to it and followed the correct procedures with regard to site inspections. It told Mr X there was insufficient available evidence provided to pursue a prosecution.
8. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and while Mr X says he found the events relating to these matters to have been stressful and upsetting, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.
9. There was delay by the Council in addressing Mr X’s complaint under its complaints procedure. However, while this is noted, the Stage 2 response has now been provided and we will not generally investigate complaint handling issues when we are not investigating the substantive issue. Mr X also seeks an apology from the Council but we will not generally investigate just to obtain this outcome.
10. Mr X’s concerns about a possible data breach concerning his personal information can be reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office which is the body best placed to deal with such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman