Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with t reports that a charity it supports is guilty of fraud, and that the Council has failed to properly respond to the complainants request for information about this. This is because some elements happened too long ago, it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council dealt with more recent matters and the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with complaints about how bodies respond to requests for information.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mrs X, complains about how the Council has dealt with her reports that a charity, which the Council supports, has committed fraud. She says the matter was first reported to the Council in 2017 but the Council did not investigate. She also says the Council did not respond appropriately when the matter was raised again in 2021. Mrs X complains that the Council has failed to respond to her Freedom of Information requests about these matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

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

6. I cannot investigate Mrs X’s claims of fraud within the charity. This is because the charity is not a body within our jurisdiction. Investigation into the running of charities and fraud are for the Charity Commission and the police. We can only consider how the Council dealt with reports made about the charity.
7. I will not investigate how the Council dealt with reports of fraud in 2017. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why it could not have been brought to the Ombudsman sooner.
8. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with further reports in 2021. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it dealt with the matter. The Council stopped grants being paid to the charity whilst it carried out a financial audit. The Council’s audit found no irregularities and so grants to the charity continued. Mrs X may disagree with the Council’s approach and conclusions that there were no irregularities, but this does not mean it has done anything wrong. It is not for us to question the professional judgement of the Council’s auditors.
9. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with her Freedom of Information requests. This is because it is reasonable to expect her to complaint to the Information Commissioner who is better placed to investigate such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because some elements are late, there is no evidence of fault in relation to more recent matters and complaints about how bodies respond to Freedom of Information requests are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman