Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his request for information. This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with his request for information. He says its request for him to attend in person and show identification in order to receive the information is unreasonable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

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 will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to deal with the matter. Mr X’s request for information has been dealt with under data protection regulations and the Council sought the advice from the ICO before reaching its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the ICO are better placed to consider the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman