Summary: We will not investigate how the Surrey Police and Crime Panel considered a complaint about the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to raise her concerns about data protection issues with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains of maladministration by the Surrey OPCC (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner) and Police and Crime Panel (the Panel), including lost complaints, delays and dismissal of concerns without proper reasoning as well as refusals of Subject Access Requests (SAR). Mrs X says these failures caused distress, procedural unfairness, reputational harm with impacts worsened by lack of reasonable adjustments. She seeks an apology, acknowledgment of failures, review of complaint‑handling and SAR processes, and confirmation of learning to prevent recurrence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complains the Panel mishandled her complaint by losing her original complaint submission, causing delays, and communicating poorly. She also says repeated refusals of her Subject Access Requests prevented her from understanding what personal data was disclosed.
8. Police complaints and their handling fall under a separate statutory framework set out in the Police Reform Act 2002. This process includes investigation by the police and review by the appropriate body, with no further right of appeal once a review decision is issued. The Ombudsman cannot act as an additional appeal body and cannot challenge the complaint outcome, the Professional Standards Dept findings, or the OPCC’s review decision.
9. Mrs X asked the Ombudsman to consider complaint‑handling failures by the OPCC and the refusal of her Subject Access Requests. The OPCC acknowledged it did not act on the original complaint submitted to the Independent Office for Police Conduct but confirmed it had subsequently considered the merits of the issues when Mrs X resubmitted her complaint.
10. The Ombudsman can only investigate complaint‑handling faults where they cause a significant, separate injustice and where a worthwhile outcome remains achievable. In this case, the statutory process ultimately accepted, reviewed, and determined the complaint. The handling faults did not prevent consideration of the complaint or affect its outcome. The distress described mainly arises from dissatisfaction with the outcome and the time taken, rather than from the loss of a substantive right that the Ombudsman could remedy.
11. The Ombudsman normally investigates only where a complainant suffers serious loss, harm, or distress directly caused by an organisation’s faults. In these circumstances, there is no sufficient independent injustice arising solely from complaint handling to justify investigation.
12. Decisions about Subject Access Requests and data disclosure fall within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office. It is therefore reasonable for Mrs X to raise these concerns with the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and it would be reasonable for her to raise the other matters with the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman