Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a waste warning notice as Mr X did not suffer any significant loss or harm from it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council issued him with a community protection warning letter when he left bulky items outside his business premises to be collected by an authorised waste carrier. Mr X feels unjustly treated by this action and the warning that was issued to him. Mr X also complains the Council committed a data breach by sending him a fixed penalty notice which related to a third party. Mr X is concerned about his own data.

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 continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement or we cannot add to what the council has already said (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council explained why the warning notice had been served. It said its environmental warden had visited the area, which is a hotspot for fly tipping, and found waste deposited on both sides of Mr X’s road. The Council said that its warden could not speak to Mr X as his business was closed and so a warning notice was issued. The Council explained that this was not a legal document. It also acknowledged that an administration error had taken place previously when it had sent a letter to Mr X which included details of a third party. It said it had reported this to its data governance team to investigate.
7. I recognise Mr X is unhappy with what took place but the Council has explained what happened and it is unlikely we could add to this. In addition, I do not consider Mr X was caused a level of loss or harm from the warning notice that would justify our further involvement. As such, we will not investigate.
8. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is the UK's independent data protection regulator and is best place to investigate any outstanding concerns Mr X might have in respect of the Council's data handling. We will not therefore investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice arising from it to warrant our further action. The data protection aspect of the complaint is best dealt with by the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman