Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a data protection matter. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the matter and they have already investigated. The Council has apologised to Mrs X and it is unlikely investigation by the Ombudsman will achieve anything more for her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council failed to redact her personal information when uploading her comments on a planning application to its website. She is not happy with the Council’s handling of her complaint about the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mrs X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with her and considered her comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X commented on a planning application but as a result of human error, the Council did not redact her personal information.
5. Mrs X complained to the Information Commissioner and as a result of their investigation the Council apologised to Mrs X. Mrs X remains unhappy with the Council’s handling of her complaint and questions how she can be sure her comments will be taken into account as she says the Council has ignored her phone calls and emails.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with data protection matters and they have investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to redact her personal information. We will not therefore investigate the same issue again. The Council has apologised for its failure and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more for Mrs X.
7. Mrs X is unhappy about the Council’s handling of the planning application and says its lack of response made it impossible to comply with the consultation deadline. She also says her neighbours, parish council and other interested parties did not have the complete information to fully evaluate the complaint. However Mrs X’s complaint confirms she was able to submit an objection to the proposal and the application was withdrawn. These issues have not therefore caused her significant injustice.
8. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not/cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the Information Commissioner has already considered the issue and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more for Mrs X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman