Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s interaction with Ms X at a recycling centre. We could not add anything to the investigation the Council has already carried out, we cannot achieve the outcome that Ms X wants, and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide complaints about access to information.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about her interaction with Council contractors at a recycling centre, and the Council had not properly processed her Subject Access Request (SAR). Ms X also said the Council took too long to consider her complaint.
2. Ms X said this caused her distress.
3. Ms X wants the Council contractors to offer her a personal apology, and for the Council to process the SAR.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X was unhappy with the conduct of several members of staff that she met when visiting a recycling centre. Ms X complained to the Council.
9. The commissioned service, responsible for the management of the recycling centre, responded to Ms X’s complaint. Ms X remained dissatisfied and escalated to stage two which the Council then responded to.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaint, apologised, took learning from her complaint and offered training to staff. There is nothing we could add to the investigation the Council has already carried out.
11. Ms X told the Council the only matter outstanding from her perspective was the council contractors had not offered her a personal apology.
12. Our role is to investigate allegations of systemic fault in the Council’s administrative process, rather than individual complaints about staff conduct. As such, as we cannot compel a council officer to offer a personal apology, we cannot achieve the outcome that Ms X seeks.
13. The main functions of the Information Commissioner (ICO) are to uphold information rights in the public interest by promoting openness by public bodies and protecting the privacy of individuals.
14. We will not investigate complaints where there is another body better placed to oversee the complaint. It would be reasonable for Ms X to refer her access to information complaint to the ICO.
15. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not add anything to the investigation the Council has already carried out, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X seeks, and the ICO is better placed to consider her complaint about access to information.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman