Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a code of conduct complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with complaints about data protection.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council dealt with her complaint about the conduct of a senior officer at the Council and that it delayed responding to her Subject Access Request (SAR).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or

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

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Local Authorities have a duty to designate a Monitoring Officer to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure that the authority, its officers and members maintain the highest standards of conduct. Each council has different rules for dealing with complaints about code of conduct breaches.
7. The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions. Where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, the Ombudsman will generally not criticise the decision, even if the complainant does not agree with it.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer dealt with the matter in line with the Council’s rules for code of conduct complaints before deciding not to take further action. The Monitoring Officer considered Mrs X’s concerns and the evidence available and explained why they did not consider the complaint should be investigated.
9. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Monitoring Officer’s decision. But the Monitoring Officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the complaint should not be formally investigated. As the Monitoring Officer properly considered Mrs X’s concerns, in line with the Council’s criteria for code of conduct complaints, it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with her SAR. This is because the matter is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and the ICO are better placed to consider complaints about how SARs are dealt with.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman