Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her insurance claim. This is because the substantive issue falls outside our jurisdiction due to the availability of a court remedy and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation of how it handled the claim.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of the insurance claim she made against it in relation to a culvert trash screen. She says there were poor processes, poor governance and poor conduct issues and that it breached the GDPR and data protection legislation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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)
5. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to the decision made in relation to Ms X’s insurance claim. It is open to her to exercise her right of appeal to the courts to challenge the decision and as she has this alternative remedy available which we would reasonably expect her to use, this matter falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.
9. We will not investigate matters relating to the Council’s handling of the claim when we are not investigating the substantive issue as there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation. Ms X’s concerns about data protection are best addressed by the Information Commissioner’s Office, the body specifically set up to deal with such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the substantive issue falls outside our jurisdiction due to the availability of a court remedy and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation of how it handled the claim.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman