Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s information request. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to consider how the Council responded and any remaining injustice to Mr X is not serious enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council took six months to provide information he had requested and during that time, it failed to comply with several instructions the Information Commissioner’s Office gave to it. Mr X complains the Council then refused to respond to the complaint he made about this. Mr X has been put to time and trouble and seeks an apology in person from the Council.

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 freedom of information. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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, we cannot obtain the outcome the complainant seeks, or there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority on information rights and is best placed to hold the Council accountable for how it dealt with Mr X’s information request. If Mr X is unhappy with the ICO’s handling of this matter, he should complain to the ICO.
7. While I recognise that Mr X experienced delay in receiving the information he requested and was put to some time and trouble, I do not consider this amounts to injustice serious enough to warrant our involvement. Additionally, we cannot ask a representative of the Council to apologise in person to Mr X as this is beyond our remit.
8. The Council has told Mr X it will not now investigate how it responded to his information request, via its statutory complaint procedure. It says this is not appropriate given this matter has been dealt with by the ICO. It is for the Council to decide how to respond to a complaint made to it and it is unlikely we could be critical of its decision on this.
9. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the ICO is best placed to hold the Council to account and any remaining injustice to Mr X is not serious enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman