Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about standards committees because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and it reasonable to expect Mrs Y to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council failed to properly consider her complaint about Councillors who she says questioned her reputation publicly and made her feel bullied. She also complained the Council failed to properly respond to a Freedom of Information Act request.
2. Mrs Y says the issue has caused her upset and has made her lose trust in the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, 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

5. I considered information Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
7. In this case, while Mrs Y may feel strongly, the upset caused is not serious harm or distress to be considered a significant personal injustice which would justify our use of public funds to investigate. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
8. Mrs Y has also complained about the Council’s response to her freedom of information request. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection or freedom of information, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints as it was set up for this purpose. As the service is free and reasonable adjustments can be made, I would consider it reasonable for Mrs Y to approach the ICO about her concerns so we will not investigate her complaint about freedom of information.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and it reasonable to expect Mrs Y to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman