Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s failure to respond to his complaint about matters relating to his requests for information. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the Information Commissioner has already dealt with the substantive matter and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman of the secondary matters.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has failed to register and investigate his complaint about its inadequate response to his requests for information and about a named officer who ignored his communication. He says the Council’s failures have impacted on other complaints he is making and that he has expended time and trouble pursuing matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B submitted a complaint to the Council about a matter concerning his garage. As part of this he made a subject access request.
6. The Council advised him that it would respond to him and that if he was dissatisfied with the response or its handling of his case he could contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
7. Mr B contacted the ICO and it responded to him. The ICO told the Council that it considered Mr B’s complaint to be closed because the Council had provided him with his personal data. However, it also said that should more evidence be brought to the ICO’s attention it may contact the Council again.

Assessment

8. Although Mr B has made clear that his complaint concerns the Council’s failure to register and investigate his complaint, his contact and his reason for submitting the complaint relate to matters already considered by the ICO and which the ICO says it will revisit if more evidence is provided. As this is the case, this is not a complaint the Ombudsman will investigate.
9. Mr B’s concerns about the Council’s failure to respond to his complaint and about the failure of a named Council officer to respond to his communication are secondary matters and will not be pursued by the Ombudsman in isolation when we will not investigate the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Information Commissioner has already dealt with the substantive matter and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman of the secondary matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman