Central Bedfordshire Council (22 005 609)

Category : Other Categories > Councillor conduct and standards

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 18 Aug 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in responding to Ms X’s complaint about councillor conduct as any remaining injustice caused to Ms X is not sufficient to warrant our involvement. We cannot question the decision on Ms X’s complaint as, other than the delay, there is no indication of fault in how it was reached.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains the Council took around 15 months to respond to her complaint that a councillor unlawfully accessed her personal data and published it on a social media site. Mrs X complains the delay in waiting for the decision impacted on her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. 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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council apologised to Ms X for the delay, and explained that there has been a high turnover of legal officers at the Council over the past 12 – 15 months.
  2. The Council’s decision was that Ms X’s complaint did not disclose a potential breach of the code of conduct by the councillor as the information in question was in the public domain, by virtue of Ms X’s role in a public body. The Council decided therefore that no further action would be taken.
  3. Unless there is evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision, we cannot criticise it. I have not seen evidence of such fault. In addition, this is essentially a complaint about data protection and as such, if Ms X remains dissatisfied, I consider the most appropriate body to consider the matter further is the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is the UK’s independent authority on data privacy issues.
  4. While I recognise the delay in the Council providing its response did impact on Ms X, I do not consider this represents a sufficient level of injustice, from our perspective, that would warrant our involvement.
  5. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of Council fault causing a significant injustice to Ms X.

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