Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council deleting CCTV footage. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with complaints about data protection matters.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly deal with his request for CCTV footage of an incident in which he was the victim of a crime. He says he made the request within the retention period, but due to the Council’s delayed response the footage was deleted, and he lost the chance to use it as evidence. He wants the Council to admit fault and improve its timeliness and communication.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council accepted that it failed to communicate properly after Mr X submitted his CCTV request. Specifically, it did not provide any updates beyond the initial automated acknowledgement and despite a follow-up email.
8. The Council accepted it should have kept Mr X informed and apologised for this. It also accepted there was a delay in responding to the Stage 2 complaint and apologised for the time taken to provide its final response.
9. However, the Council limited its acceptance of fault to these issues and did not accept it mishandled the CCTV request or that its actions led to the loss of the footage.
10. If Mr X is unhappy with how the Council handled his CCTV request, its retention and data protection policy in relation to CCTV, or its decision to delete the footage, he should complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is the appropriate body to consider such matters.
11. While the Council accepted fault in relation to communication and complaint handling, the Ombudsman will not usually investigate complaint handling in isolation where it is not investigating the substantive issue. In any event, the Council’s apology for its communication failings and delay in responding to the stage two is a sufficient remedy.

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the ICO is better placed to deal with complaints about data protection matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman