Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a request for CCTV and bodycam footage. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider the matter. There is insufficient evidence the Council’s other actions affected the outcome, and the courts are best placed to consider the Fixed Penalty Notice itself.

The complaint

1. The complainant (X) said the Council failed to respond to a request for CCTV and a subsequent complaint. They said the Council delayed responding to several attempts to chase the matter and failed to manage their expectations relating to response timescales. X said the matter caused them significant time and trouble as well as distress. They wanted the Council to make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

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. The Council issued X a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) in early 2025 for an alleged environmental offence. X contacted the Council requesting CCTV and bodycam footage to assist them in challenging the matter. They say the Council failed to respond promptly.
7. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body that considers complaints about how organisations handle requests for information. There is not a reason for us to consider the information request instead. It is open to X to contact the ICO to complain about the Council’s response, including delays, to their requests for CCTV and bodycam footage.
8. The Council has apologised for the frustration caused to X by delays in considering their representations and complaint-handling. There is insufficient evidence this caused an injustice to X, as there is no evidence the outcome would have differed had the Council responded sooner. It considered the available evidence but this did not change its view.
9. It is open to X to contest the FPN by not paying it and arguing their defence in court. The courts are best placed to consider any challenge to the FPN itself. We would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome by investigating how the Council handled the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate X’s complaint because the ICO is best placed to consider how the Council handled their request for information, and there is insufficient evidence the Council’s other actions changed the outcome. The courts are best placed to consider the Fixed Penalty Notice at the centre of the complaint

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman