Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a missed bin collection and the Council’s handling of a Subject Access Request. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to warrant further investigation and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with the complaint about the SAR request.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council missed a waste collection and did not properly comply with his Subject Access Request (SAR).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide 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 Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains the Council did not collect his bin. He says the Council did not provide the CCTV footage he requested through a SAR. He also says the Council contacted him using a communication method he had not agreed to.
8. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said Mr X’s bin was not presented at the boundary of the highway, as required by its waste policy.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Its policy requires bins to be presented at the boundary of the highway. It explained this to Mr X.
10. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If, as here, we consider it followed the correct process, by deciding the matter in line with its policy, we cannot question whether it was right or wrong even though Mr X disagrees with it.
11. Even if there were fault in the Council’s process, we will not investigate. While I recognise the missed waste collection will have caused Mr X frustration and inconvenience, the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.
12. Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of his SAR request and its use of a communication method he says he did not agree to. We will not investigate this matter. Mr X’s complaint concerns the Council’s handling of his SAR and personal information. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the appropriate body to consider complaints about data protection and subject access requests. It has the expertise to decide such matters, and can make necessary recommendations.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s communication restrictions. The Council is entitled to have a policy of restricting contact arrangements. We have also previously considered this issue. Although the current complaint is about a more recent decision to restrict contact arrangements, the overall principle is the same. Therefore, we will not revisit this point.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to warrant further investigation and the ICO is better placed to deal with the complaint about the SAR request. We will not revisit our previous decision on the point about restricting contact arrangements.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman