Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data protection matters and the Council’s handling of a complaint. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with the substantive matter and it would be disproportionate for us to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling.

The complaint

1. Councillor X complains the Council failed to respond to his complaint that Council officers breached data protection rules by intercepting his official emails.

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. 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councillor X is an elected member of the Council (a councillor). He says the Council has restricted his emails with other councillors. In January 2025 he complained that officers intercepted and read his confidential councillor emails. He says this breaches data protection because councillor emails contain confidential information intended only for the named recipients and should not be read or used by others. He also says the Council has not responded to his complaint about this.
7. We will not investigate Councillor X’s complaint. The Information Commissioner can consider whether the Council has breached data protection law.
8. There is no charge for making a complaint to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints, has the expertise to decide such matters and can make necessary recommendations. There is not good reason for us to investigate the matter instead.
9. Councillor X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately
10. Councillor X also says the council is investigating complaints against him made by council officers but has restricted his emails to all councillors. Our decision on a previous complaint from Councillor X explained why we will not investigate the issue about diverted emails. Although the current complaint is about a more recent decision to restrict emails, the overall principle is the same. Therefore we will not revisit this point.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Councillor X’s complaint. The Information Commissioner’s office is better placed to deal with the complaint about the alleged data breach. We will not revisit our previous decision on the point about restricting emails. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman