Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that Transport for London failed to supply information requested under a subject access request relating to a congestion charge and delayed replying to a complaint. It is reasonable for the complainant to pursue the matter with the Information Commissioner. There is insufficient injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Miss X that Transport for London failed to provide information following a subject access request in August 2021. The information included records of telephone conversations regarding a congestion charge. Mr X says Transport for London has given different dates for sending the information and he is concerned that it has lost the information. Mr X says Transport for London has failed to keep to its statutory obligations and he has complained to the Information Commissioner.
2. Mr X complains Transport for London delayed replying to his complaint of 15 August until 22 October. He says he has been caused time, trouble and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. 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

5. I have considered Mr X’s information and discussed the complaint with him by telephone.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
7. It is reasonable for Mr X to pursue his complaint about the handling of personal information and the reply to his subject access request with the Information Commissioner. Mr X confirms he has gone to the Information Commissioner who contacted the Council.
8. The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. There is insufficient injustice. Mr X is not complaining about the congestion charge which was paid. We do not normally investigate complaint handling where the underlying issue is not being investigate or is outside jurisdiction and there is no reason to do so here.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that Transport for London failed to supply information requested under a subject access request and delayed replying to a complaint. It is reasonable for the complainant to pursue the matter with the Information Commissioner. There is insufficient injustice to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman