Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s booking system for its waste recycling centre as this is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s booking system for its waste recycling site breaches data protection rules as it requires residents to share personal information to use the site. Mr X has refused to comply with this and so has been paying for private collections since 2019. Mr X wants the Council to change its policy and to compensate him for his costs. Mr X also complains about delay by the Council in dealing with his complaint and that he was not kept updated.

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 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. At the heart of this complaint is Mr X’s belief that the Council’s booking system breaches data protection rules in that its processing of personal data is not necessary or proportionate. We cannot determine if this is the case. Such matters are for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the UK’s independent regulator in respect of data protection matters. It is reasonable therefore to expect Mr X to raise this matter with the ICO.
8. Mr X believes the Council is operating outside its legally defined functions and refers to a Supreme Court decision from 2019 which he says sets a precedent in this regard. The Council has explained in its complaint responses to Mr X why it has decided to continue with the booking system with reference to the law. Whether the Council’s actions are lawful and/or in opposition to any legal precedent could only be determined by the courts.
9. While I recognise that Mr X is not happy to use the booking system, ultimately it is his choice not to comply with the requirements of it. The Council has not denied him access to the site per se. In addition, any judgement on the Council’s policy is inextricably linked to whether its actions breach data protection rules, which as explained, is not something that we can determine.
10. I understand that Mr X remains unhappy about the Council’s handling of his complaint, but I do not consider that in isolation, this causes him a level of injustice significant enough to justify our further involvement.
11. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is best dealt with by the ICO and any injustice caused by the complaint handling in isolation is not sufficient to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman