Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council communicated with her. Any injustice to her is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Also, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider her complaint about a potential data protection breach.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council communicated with her when she made a telephone call to discuss parking permits.

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:

• 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))

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. Miss X says, during a call with the Council to discuss parking permits, she was told someone would email her back. But she later realised she had not provided her contact details during the call. Miss X feels the person she spoke to wanted to end the call early and feels there may have been a data breach. Miss X says she complained to the Council, but it refused to consider her complaint.
7. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council communicated with her during a phone call. This is because I do not consider that the issues raised have caused Miss X a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.
8. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about data protection. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to refer her concerns about a possible data protection breach to the ICO.
9. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because any injustice to her is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Also, the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider her complaint about a potential data protection breach.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman