Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a cyber security incident, including the information it provides to residents and its approach to data security. This is because the Council’s response is a matter that affects all or most of the people in its area. Nor will I investigate a complaint about the Council issuing X with a notice it may restrict their ability to communicate with it. There is no significant injustice.

The complaint

1. X complained the Council’s response to a cyber security incident was poor and did not provide sufficient detail to residents about how they were affected. X was also unhappy the Council’s current plans are not sufficiently accessible. X said the Council was also at fault because it sent them notice that it may restrict how it communicates with them.
2. X said they are concerned about services they may need to use.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. X complained about the Council’s response to a cyber security incident in November 2025. They said they were unhappy with the availability of information the Council released to the public, and other information was not always easily accessible. X said they had concerns about residents’ data and how that may affect them accessing the Council’s services. I cannot investigate this matter, because X’s complaint is something that affects all or most of the people who live in the Council’s area.
7. X said the Council was wrong to have responded to their query on these matters, outside of their formal complaint procedures. I will not investigate a complaint about complaint handling. It is not proportionate to do so, where we are unable to consider the main issue.
8. Additionally, X said the Council sent them what they described as a warning letter, because of the volume of their correspondence, and this was sent in relation to its unreasonable complainant behaviour policy.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation.
10. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter. I have not seen evidence the Council’s actions has caused X a significant injustice and will not investigate this part of their complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We cannot investigate X’s main complaint because the law prohibits it and we will not investigate the other part, because there is no significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman