Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to enter into a friendship agreement with another town, its handling of her complaint and its response to her Freedom of Information request. There is insufficient evidence of fault and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about access to information.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about a Council decision to enter into a friendship agreement with another town. She says the decision undermines her trust in local government. She also complains the Council has provided an inadequate response to her Freedom of Information request. She wants the Council to suspend the friendship agreement and provide her with all requested Council records.

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
• 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, section 34(B))

3. 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)
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 provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to enter into the friendship agreement. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make as part of local government functions. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the decision was reached, so we cannot question the outcome or direct the Council to make a different decision.
8. The Council told Ms X it would not investigate her complaint under its code of conduct procedures as the complaint related to a decision made at a full council meeting, rather than the conduct of a councillor.
9. We will not investigate this. 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.
10. I am satisfied the Monitoring Officer appropriately considered the matter before deciding not to investigate Ms X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
11. Ms X complains the Monitoring Officer used an incorrect title when corresponding with her. We will not investigate this as any injustice caused by this is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.
12. Ms X also complains about the Council’s response to her Freedom of Information request. We will not investigate this. If Ms X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response, she can approach the ICO. The ICO is better placed to consider this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about access to information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman