Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has handled the complainant’s enquiries/complaints about alleged fly-tipping on land near his home. The Council has taken satisfactory action to address the conflicting information it previously provided to the complainant, there is not enough evidence of fault in how it recently decided it could take no further action to remove the items, and the ICO is better placed to consider complaints about the sharing of personal information/data.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council provided conflicting information about whether it had contacted the owner of land where he says items have been fly-tipped, and about whether it had given his personal information to a third party.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• the Council has already taken satisfactory action to address the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

3. In relation to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
4. And regarding the second bullet point, we normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) 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 Mr X, which included his complaint correspondence.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X has been very concerned about the items which have been placed near his home.
7. But the Ombudsman will not start an investigation into the matter, despite the new information Mr X has provided.
8. This is because the Council has already apologised to Mr X for previously providing incorrect/conflicting information about whether it had been able to contact the owner of the land where the items have been placed. It has offered him £500 in recognition of the time, trouble and stress this matter has caused him. I consider this to be a satisfactory way to address the previous errors in the Council’s communications about the matter.
9. The Council’s Stage 2 complaint response explains that as the items are on private land, and it has been unable to contact the landowner, it has no power to have them removed. It is also satisfied the items remain in sound order and are not causing any highways issues. This is a judgement/decision the Council is entitled to reach, even if Mr X disagrees with it.
10. Finally, if Mr X believes the Council has inappropriately shared his personal information/data, then it seems reasonable to expect him to pursue this aspect of the complaint with the ICO. It is the UK's independent authority on data protection matters and is best placed to determine any concerns Mr X may have about the use of his personal information.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• the Council has already taken satisfactory action to address the conflicting information it previously provided about contacting the landowner.
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council recently decided it still had no powers to remove the items.
• the ICO is better placed to consider complaints about the sharing of personal information/data.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman