Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his complaint. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint which was made up of two parts. Mr X says his complaint was made up of a freedom of information (FOI) request together with a separate complaint about social care introductory agency commissioning and oversight.
2. Mr X complains that the Council only acknowledged the FOI aspect of the complaint. He says the Council did not deal properly with the other aspect of the complaint.

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 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X which includes the Council’s response.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains the Council failed to deal with the second part of the complaint properly. Mr X says the Council failed to identify the applicable complaints procedure, appoint a complaint investigator, provide a response timescale or issue a substantive complaint response.
7. According to the information I have seen, the Council’s FOI response answered both parts of the complaint in the same letter.
8. The Council’s letter explained it does not commission services from introductory agencies. It provided information and links relevant to the request, advised some information could not be disclosed under FOI because it related to the complainant's personal data, and explained that such information should instead be sought through a Subject Access Request (SAR). It noted the complainant already had a SAR open with the Council. The response also explained the complainant's rights to request an internal review and signposted him to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
9. We will not investigate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of a significant personal injustice arising from the matters complained about.
10. The information shows the Council considered and responded to the substantive issues Mr X raised through its FOI process. In doing so, the Council explained its position regarding commissioning arrangements, advised why some information could not be provided under FOI Act, and directed him to the appropriate alternative route for obtaining personal information through his existing SAR. It also informed him of his review and appeal rights.
11. Even if there were fault in how the Council categorised or processed the correspondence, there is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice arising. Mr X has received the Council's substantive position on the matters he wished to raise. There is insufficient evidence that the absence of a separate complaint response has caused Mr X a significant personal injustice beyond frustration and time spent pursuing the matter.
12. Given the limited injustice arising from the alleged fault, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman