London Borough of Camden (24 002 859)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 07 Aug 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about a failure to send them all relevant information when they made a subject access request. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider that complaint. We will not investigate the Council’s delay in reviewing its decision that X did not meet the criteria for medical priority or communicate with them about it because the Council has already made an appropriate offer to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. X complained the Council failed to send them all relevant information when they made a subject access request. They also complained the Council’s medical adviser and review team would not communicate with them directly about their request for medical priority. They said the Council’s failings had caused anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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:
    • further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
    • there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
    • it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

  1. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information and subject access requests. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about subject access requests, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by X and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

  1. X requested medical priority, which the Council refused. X asked for a review of the decision. The Council did not consider the review request until three months later when it asked X to complete a medical form. X provided a completed form within two weeks.
  2. Council records show it decided X was not eligible for medical priority. However, despite several chaser emails and telephone calls, the Council delayed by three months in telling X its review decision and the reasons for that decision.
  3. X then made a subject access request for the evidence relied on when making the review decision but says they have not received all relevant information.

My assessment

  1. We will not investigate X’s complaint about the subject access request. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider that complaint.
  2. In its complaint response, the Council accepted some fault in its communications with X and a delay in issuing a review decision. It apologised and offered a payment of £175 for this. This was an appropriate offer to remedy the injustice caused, particularly given the outcome did not change. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
  3. X is unhappy with the decision they do not meet the criteria for medical priority. They have the right to a second review, and it is reasonable for them to exercise that right. Therefore, we will not investigate their complaint about the medical priority decision at this stage.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate X’s complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the subject access request complaint; the Council has already offered a suitable payment to remedy the injustice caused by its delays and poor communication in relation to the first review; and X can ask for a second review of the medical priority decision and it is reasonable for them to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings