Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his personal information or its failure to address his complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider Mr X’s specific concerns about personal data processing and retention.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to:

• explain how his personal information has been handled,
• delete his personal information despite his request,
• provide a copy of its Data Protection Policy, and
• properly deal with his complaint.

2. Mr X wants his personal data deleted, an explanation of why he received an online error message whilst completing an online form, an apology and a financial remedy for the alleged data breach.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and
• 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).
5. We will not usually 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), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complains he submitted an online complaint form to the Council about parking services and received an error message informing him something had gone wrong. He says the message stated his details had been logged and would be reviewed by the Council’s engineers. Mr X says the Council has failed to properly explain what happened to the personal information he included on the form and ignored his request to delete it.
9. The Council advised no personal information was captured by its online system as Mr X did not submit the form in the required time. The online session timed out meaning no personal information was saved. The Council explained it has reviewed its systems and found no evidence of a breach of Mr X’s personal information.
10. If Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response to this aspect of his complaint, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) can decide whether the Council is at fault and, if so, what to do about it. The ICO has the relevant expertise and powers, so is better placed than the Ombudsman to decide this.
11. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide him with a copy of its Data Protection Policy. The Council has explained the Policy is publicly available and accessible on its website. I have seen no evidence the Council withheld the policy from Mr X or that he was prevented from accessing it. The policy could reasonably have been located through a website search. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in relation to this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council's complaint handling procedures alone if we are not going to investigate any substantive issues at the same time. This would not be a good use of our limited public resources.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it and there is not enough evidence of fault in relation to the other aspects of his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman