Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate a complaint it has already considered. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, we consider it reasonable for Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner if he believes the Council is not providing information which he is entitled to see.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council lied to him when it refused to consider his complaint saying it had already been considered.
2. He also says it has threatened to restrict his contact with the Council under its unreasonable complainant policy.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to follow due process when it approved demolition of farm buildings near his home.
8. The Council declined to consider his complaint because it had already considered the same issue previously, and Mr X had also complained to the Ombudsman.
9. The Ombudsman has already considered Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding the demolition of the farm buildings. It issued a decision under reference 21 006 404 in April 2022. We have also declined to investigate the same complaint made by Mr X in April 2023 and April 2024 as we do not investigate complaints about matters when we have already issued a decision on the same issue.
10. From the information I have seen there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s confirmation that both the Council and the Ombudsman have already dealt with his complaint about the Council’s decision to approve the demolition of the farm buildings.
11. If Mr X believes the Council is withholding information that he is entitled to see, it is reasonable to expect him to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office on this point.
12. The Council has advised Mr X that his continued complaints about the same matters may mean it places him back on its unreasonable customer list. However, I have not seen any evidence that it has done so.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And it is reasonable to expect him to complain to the Information Commissioner if he believes the Council is withholding information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman