Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about standard committees because the Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to consider the issues raised in this complaint and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed act against a councillor, who he believes broke the code of conduct by not responding to his letters. He has also complained the Council has failed to properly respond to his requests for evidence relating to a potential fraud or to his Subject Access Request (SAR) so he can support his report to the police about the matter.
2. Mr Y says this means he has repeatedly had to defend himself against false accusations and has been unable to have repairs on his home completed, causing him significant upset.

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:

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

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

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y complained the Council failed to properly respond to his requests for evidence relating to a potential fraud, where he says someone, has signed a document about home repairs in his name, pretending to be him. Mr Y is seeking evidence of the signature, which he says the Council has failed to provide either in response to his request or his SAR, so that he can bolster his report to the police about the matter. He has told us that the Council has now told him, it cannot find the signature and will not release information about it following his SAR.
8. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) deal with complaints about data protection. It is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes failure to disclose information.
9. 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, 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 the ICO is better placed, free to use and able to make reasonable adjustments if needed, we consider it reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the ICO about his concerns. We will not investigate.
10. Local Authorities have a duty to appoint a Monitoring Officer (MO) to ensure the lawfulness and fairness of authority decision making. The Monitoring Officer must ensure the authority, its officers, and members such as a local councillor, maintain the highest standards of conduct.
11. Mr Y complained to the MO about his local councillor, who he says has failed to respond to his letters about a housing matter and has not provided him with evidence of the signature he says was fraudulently signed which is key to the housing matter.
12. The MO declined to investigate the complaint. It explained that The Councillor passed the matter to the appropriate part of the Council’s services, who then responded to the complaint about that service. It explained that in the MO’s professional view, the issue related to the service provision of the Council and was not an issue about the Councillor, who had appropriate passed the matter to the correct department to deal with. The MO said they have not been provided with information to support a breach of the Member Code of Conduct and it therefore would not investigate.
13. We do not offer a right of appeal against the Council’s decision on member conduct complaints. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
14. While Mr Y may disagree with the Monitoring Officer’s decision, they were entitled to use their professional judgement in deciding not to investigate. It considered how the contacts Mr Y made with the Councillor were dealt with and responded to and found these to be appropriate, even if Mr Y did not find them satisfactory. It found that the issues related to the Council’s services and not to the conduct of the Member and that there was insufficient information to support a breach of the Member Code of Conduct.
15. Consequently, as the decision was based on relevant information and considerations, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. Further, the substantive part of Mr Y’s complaint relates to the provision of information which he later requested through a SAR. As concluded, the ICO is better placed to consider this issue. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to consider the issues raised in this complaint and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman