Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data handling matters, or the Council’s decision on how it responded to Mrs X about those matters. There is another body better placed to consider a complaint about data handling concerns and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating complaint handling procedures in isolation of the substantive issue.

The complaint

1. Mrs X was unhappy the Council declined to accept, register, or reply to her complaint, by using its corporate complaint procedures. Mrs X said this meant she was denied procedural fairness and was then forced to raise her complaint to us.

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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local 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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In February 2026, Mrs X made a complaint to us about the Council’s refusal to deal with her complaint under its corporate complaint procedures, despite her making it clear, she was raising a stage one complaint. I have reviewed the correspondence Mrs X provided in support of her complaint.
7. In late January 2026, the Council responded to the complaint letter Mrs X had sent it, in early January. It referred her to an earlier reply it had sent her from mid-2024, on the matters she raised.
8. The 2024 reply and the subsequent 2026 reply indicated the Council had nothing further to add and would not enter into correspondence with Mrs X, about the matters Mrs X was raising. Additionally, both letters signposted Mrs X to both us and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
9. Noting the substantive issues Mrs X is raising with the Council, relates to information governance and her General Data Protection Rights, I will not investigate a complaint about those matters, because the ICO was set up by Parliament with the purpose of regulating how public authorities comply with the GDPR. And as such they are better suited to look at this part of Mrs X’s complaint.
10. Nor will I investigate a complaint about how the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. Notwithstanding Mrs X feels aggrieved about the Council’s reply, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling procedures, where we decide not to investigate the substantive matters.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. There is another body better placed to consider a complaint about data handling concerns and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us looking at complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman