Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about disclosure of personal data. This is because the Information Commission is better placed to consider complaints about data protection.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not provide a complete response to his Subject Access Request (SAR). He says the Council also failed to explain clearly why it withheld information, including after carrying out an internal review. More broadly, he says the Council provided poor service through delays, contradictory communication and a failure to follow proper procedures.
2. Mr X says he has had to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. He says the Council’s actions have hindered his ability to challenge its decisions. He also says the time and effort involved in pursuing the matter have caused him considerable stress and undermined his trust in the Council.
3. Mr X would like the Council to provide a complete response to his SAR, with clear explanations for any information withheld. He would also like the Council to acknowledge its failings, apologise and make service improvements to prevent similar problems in future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.

5. 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.

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

6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commission 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)
7. We will not normally investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his Subject Access Request concerns the disclosure of personal information. Therefore, I consider the Information Commission is best placed to consider it.
11. Mr X has also complained about how his complaint was handled and the service he received from the Council. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling. I also do not consider the injustice Mr X suffered because of any fault with how the Council communicated with him would be significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Information Commission is better placed to consider complaints about data protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman