Summary: We will not investigate this complaint which is mainly about data protection issues. Much of the complaint is late and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the matters complained about.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about a comment made by a council officer during a meeting in 2017. The comment was about an allegation made against Mr X which he says was false. Mr X also complained about the content of internal council emails which referred to the same allegation. Mr X discovered the content of the emails via Subject Access Requests.
2. Mr X wrote to the Council in March 2019 to ask for compensation. He said the emails contained incorrect information and caused great upset. Mr X has complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Information Commissioner’s Office has criticised the Council and said it needs to do more to resolve the issue.
3. Mr X says that in May 2021 the Council disclosed two further emails which he says wrongly disclosed personal information – including his address.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not 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))

7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) 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

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint. The reasons for this are as follows.
10. The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. Much of Mr X’s complaint is therefore late. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are good reasons to do so. I do not consider that to be the case here. I see no reason Mr X could not have complained much earlier, and so the exception at paragraph 5 applies to his complaint.
11. But even if much of Mr X’s complaint was not late, we would not investigate. This is because the issues at the heart of Mr X’s complaint are about the holding, handling, and disclosure of information by the Council.
12. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes disclosing information in error and holding inaccurate information.
13. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints.
14. Mr X has already complained to the ICO as we would expect somebody to do. The ICO has investigated and said the Council needs to do more to resolve the situation. We would generally not investigate something the ICO has considered. We also cannot award compensation, nor can we recommend a council disciplines its staff. It is unlikely that if we were to investigate, we could achieve an outcome with which Mr X would be satisfied.
15. Mr X’s most recent concern about the Council wrongly disclosing personal information in emails is again a data protection issue. As explained above, the ICO is the appropriate body to deal with such matters. It has broad powers to deal with breaches of data protection legislation, including fines for data controllers. We have no such powers and so we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because much of it is late, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider complaints about data protection issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman