Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a subject access request and the complaints process in connection with a dispute over her service charge bill. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the requests for information and data protection matters. And we do not investigate complaints about the complaints process when we are not investigating the underlying complaint due to lack of injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the handling of her complaints and a Subject Access Request (SAR). This is in connection with her disputing service charges.
2. Miss X says information disclosed through a SAR showed the Council had not shared relevant information with her, that it withheld some of her personal data, and that it disclosed other individuals' personal data to her.
3. She wants the Council to respond fully to her complaints, provide her SAR in full, apologise, and pay compensation

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 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))

5. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The information provided includes extensive correspondence between Miss X and Council officers concerning service charge disputes and requests for information. The correspondence shows Miss X made a SAR and raised concerns about the Council's handling of her personal information, internal communications and complaint responses.
9. When we asked the Council for its complaint’s response, the Council confirmed the complaint had not completed its complaints process. However, it said Miss X had an open case with the ICO.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The substantive issue here is the Council's handling of a Subject Access Request and alleged breaches of data protection legislation, including the withholding and disclosure of personal data. Parliament has established the Information Commissioner's Office as the specialist regulator responsible for considering such matters and the complainant has already pursued this route. The ICO is therefore the more suitable body to consider this aspect of the complaint.
11. The remaining concerns relate to the Council's complaint handling, including delays, failures to provide complaint references, and dissatisfaction with the complaint’s procedure. We do not normally investigate a council's complaint handling as a standalone matter. Where we are not investigating the underlying issue, we will not investigate the complaints process on its own as there is not enough evidence of injustice.
12. So, we will not investigate as the SAR/ data protection matters are better dealt with by the ICO. We will not investigate the complaints process on its own due to a lack of injustice when we are not investigating the core complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is better dealt with by the ICO. We will not investigate the complaint about the complaints process due to lack of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman