Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to respond to a Subject Access Request. This is because Mr X’s complaint is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council has failed to respond to his request for information made as a Subject Access Request. Mr X says the Council’s failure to respond has caused avoidable distress.

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. (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’s Office (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. This includes access to information. 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

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office as the expert body set up by Parliament to consider such complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman