Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt with his complaint about the actions of a councillor seriously and has not addressed his concern the councillor breached data protection laws. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. And the Information Commissioners’ Office is better placed to consider his concerns about breaches of data protection regulations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not dealt with his complaint about the actions of a councillor seriously, and has not addressed his concern the councillor breached data protection laws.
2. He wants an apology from the Council and the councillor. He also wants the councillor to sort out his problems with his Housing Association.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome; and
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

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

4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as housing associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. Mr X can comment on this draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X lives in a housing association home. He contacted his local councillor for help. He was concerned about the way his landlord, a housing association, had dealt with compliance checks during the Coronavirus outbreak and its approach to personal, protective equipment (PPE).
7. The councillor passed his concerns on to a member of staff at the housing association.
8. Mr X complained to the Council, saying the councillor had breached data protections laws by sending his complaint to the landlord without his permission.
9. The Council responded to his complaint. It said there was no sign in his email to the Councillor that the landlord should not be made aware of his concerns. Nor had he marked his email as private or confidential.
10. Mr X was not satisfied with this response. He contacted the Council again. However, most of the information provided on this occasion was not relevant to the complaint.
11. The Council wrote to Mr X explaining it does not consider the councillor was at fault. Mr X had contacted the councillor asking for help with his complaint about his landlord. The councillor had contacted the landlord and sent his concerns on for action. The Council also warned Mr X it will not tolerate the foul and abusive language he admitted using when speaking to the councillor and the housing association staff.

Assessment

12. The Council has a specific procedure for dealing with complaints about the conduct of councillors.
13. However, the Council did not use this process when dealing with Mr X’s complaint. I asked the Council why it did not follow the specific procedure. It advised Mr X had contacted several different officers and departments about various issues. He was told to put in a complaint so it could be investigated. Mr X sent in his complaints using its corporate complaints system and an acknowledgement was sent to him telling him of the process.
14. Unfortunately, when received, the Council discovered it was, in part, a councillor conduct complaint. Because the complaint had already been acknowledged, the Council decided to continue with this process rather than to cause Mr X any further distress by making changes.
15. The Council considered the information provided with Mr X’s request to escalate his complaint. It decided his focus and complaint related to the actions of the housing association when dealing with his tenancy and compliance checks. It believes that had it dealt with the complaint under the process for dealing with councillor complaints that it would find no breach of the code of conduct. There is no appeal against such a decision.
16. Technically this was the wrong procedure for Mr X’s complaint. But the Council has considered the issued raised and I do not think we would achieve a different outcome by investigating this point further.
17. Mr X also says the Council breached data protection rules when the councillor deliberately passed his request for help to his landlord.
18. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to do so. The ICO considers complaints about data protection and the Ombudsman normally expects a complaint to bring their concerns to its attention. That is appropriate here and I do not consider there are grounds for us to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

19. Subject to any comments Mr X might make, my view is the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. It is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. And it is appropriate for the ICO to investigate concerns about an alleged breach of data protection rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman