Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s fire authority attending his property. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice and there are other bodies better placed to consider the issues Mr X has raised.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council, as Fire Authority, entered a property he rents out to complete a ‘Safe and Well’ visit without his knowledge or consent. He says this was unlawful and a breach of his human rights.
2. He also says the Council damaged an item of furniture during the visit, and failed to provide him with information about the initial referral which led to the visit.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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,
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

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. 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.
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X.
8. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X is a commercial landlord. He complains the Council carried out a Safe and Well visit to a property he rents out in response to a report about the property and the safety of his tenants. Following the visit, the Council raised concerns with the local district council’s Environmental Health Department, which has taken its own action against Mr X.
10. Mr X complains:
• The Safe and Well visit was unlawful, carried out without his consent, and breached his human rights.
• He is entitled to information about the Safe and Well visit, including what triggered the visit and what was reported to the Environmental Health Department about his property.
• The fire authority damaged an item of furniture during the visit. He is claiming £500 in damages for this.

Safe and Well visit

11. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
12. I understand Mr X is unhappy about the Council’s visit but the impact of the visit on Mr X is not significant enough to justify investigating. The Council owed a duty to Mr X’s tenants to check on their safety and wellness following the initial report and we could not hold it responsible for any action taken by the district council’s Environmental Health Department.
13. While Mr X considers the Council may have breached his human rights by entering the property without his knowledge or permission, we cannot decide this point. Only the courts may rule on whether or not a body has breached the Human Rights Act and Mr X has the option of taking legal action against the Council if he wants a formal determination on this point.

Request for information

14. Mr X asked the Council to provide information about the Safe and Well visit, including who made the referral, inspection records and assessment reports, and any information reported to the Environmental Health Department about his property.
15. The Council’s response shows it was unable to disclose this information to Mr X due to privacy reasons under the Data Protection Act 2018 and Data Protection Legislation. Mr X believes the Council cannot withhold this information from him.
16. If Mr X believes he is entitled to the above information then he can make a freedom of information or subject access request to the Council. If he is dissatisfied with the outcome of his request, then he can make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
17. The Information Commissioner is better placed to decide if Mr X is entitled to the information he has requested and it may direct the Council to release the information to Mr X if it decides he is. We are not experts in Data Protection Legislation and cannot make such rulings. We will not therefore investigate this complaint.

Damage to furniture

18. Mr X says the Council damaged an item of furniture during the Safe and Well visit; he is seeking £500 in compensation for this.
19. The Council’s response shows that it will review any evidence of the damage but it says it did not receive any reports at the time of the visit and has no record of any damage being caused.
20. It is not for us to decide if the Council has damaged Mr X’s property; this is a matter for the courts.
21. Mr X can still provide evidence to the Council and ask it to consider his claim. If he remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response, he can seek legal advice about the possibility of pursuing the matter through the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice and because there are other bodies better placed to consider the issues Mr X has raised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman