Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council falsely accused him of illegally metal-detecting on Council-owned land. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. falsely accused him of illegally metal detecting on Council-owned land; and

b) failed to deal properly with his request for information.

2. Mr X said the Council damaged his reputation and its actions caused his health to decline.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Information Commissioner's Office 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.
4. 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, or

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

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. In 2023, the Council informed Mr X via a private email he could no longer metal detect on Council-owned land due to health and safety concerns.
8. Mr. X complained that he had not metal detected in that area for several years. He said the Council’s email implied he was engaging in illegal metal detecting, which he said defamed his character.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council accused him of illegally metal detecting and defaming his character. This is because the Council:

• sent the message privately to Mr X with no evidence of it becoming public;
• did not accuse him of an illegal activity;
• took no further action against him; and
• addressed his complaint according to its complaint handling procedures.

10. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint further. Additionally, I do not believe Mr X has experienced a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement.
11. Defamation is a civil issue which can only be determined by the courts. If Mr X remains unhappy the Council allegedly defamed his character, it is open to him to pursue the matter through the courts.
12. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his request for information. It reasonable to expect Mr X to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman