Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an incident with a refuse collection vehicle. This is because the complaint is late and there is no reason Mr X could not have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the way a refuse collection vehicle was driven. Mr X says the driver of the vehicle squeezed Mr X against the curb while he was cycling. Mr X says the Council was slow to provide him with a copy of CCTV footage, which meant it could not be considered by the Police. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with his complaint and requests for evidence made under the Freedom of Information Act.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection, including access to information. 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 Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and information from the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

7. In December 2015, Mr X complained to the Council the driver of a refuse collection vehicle had squeezed him against the curb while Mr X was cycling. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said CCTV from the vehicle showed Mr X had tried to undertake the refuse collection vehicle and had been forced to stop when he realised the road narrowed.
8. Mr X escalated his complaint. He asked to view the CCTV footage and met with a council officer. The Council sent a stage 2 response in September 2016. It said that without additional evidence or independent witnesses, it could not add anything to the stage 1 response. The Council apologised for the time taken to deal with Mr X’s complaint and said there had been a “breakdown in communications”. The Council referred Mr X to the Ombudsman in September 2016 and April 2018.
9. The event at the heart of Mr X’s complaint took place almost five years ago. The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are good reasons to do so. I do not consider that to be the case here. I see no reason Mr X could not have complained much earlier and so the exception at paragraph 3 applies to his complaint.
10. But even if Mr X’s complaint was not late, it is not one we would consider. The reasons for this are below.
11. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault, So, we could never say if the waste collection vehicle had been driven dangerously.
12. Also, part of Mr X’s complaint is about how the Council dealt with his request for information. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes failing to disclose information somebody is entitled to.
13. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about access to information, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. Any concerns about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s request for information are therefore for the ICO – not the Ombudsman.
14. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with his complaint. But we will not investigate a council’s complaint handling if we are not going to investigate the matter which led to the original complaint. This applies here.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there is no reason Mr X could not have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman