Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contact restrictions placed on the complainant. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. We will also not investigate that the Council failed to properly respond to requests for information. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to raise this matter with the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to place restrictions on his contact. He also complains that the Council failed to properly respond to his requests for information. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused him distress and led to him appointing the services of a data protection lawyer, at a cost of £300.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Contact restrictions

6. When the Council made its original decision to place restrictions on Mr X’s contact, it considered all relevant information and fully explained to Mr X why the restrictions were put in place. The Council has since carried out reviews of the restrictions, during which it considered Mr X’s communication over the previous six months before reaching a decision. After each review it wrote to Mr X to inform him of the outcome and details of the next review.
7. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about restrictions the Council placed on his contact, because there is no evidence of fault with how the Council managed the original decision-making process or the subsequent reviews. It is for the Council to decide if restrictions should be put in place or not. In the absence of fault, I cannot question the merits of its decision.

Information requests

8. Mr X has previously raised complaints with the Council about issues including the care of his mother and matters relating to planning. The Ombudsman has considered these matters and I will therefore not revisit them.
9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to provide information or responses to questions about these matters because I consider it reasonable for him to raise these matters with the Information Commissioner, because they are better placed to investigate how requests for information are responded to.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to placed restrictions on his contact and he can raise his complaint about his requests for information with the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman