Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s administration of a building control matter. Mr X’s claimed injustice stems from the Council’s decisions on the case, which we have previously investigated, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. The Information Commissioner is better placed to decide if the Council has breached the General Data Protection Regulations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to answer his questions about a building control matter, deleted important documents, failed to investigate his complaint and breached the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) by providing confidential information to a third party.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We have previously considered and decided Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the building control matter which forms the basis of this complaint. We will not therefore revisit this matter.
6. Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s deletion of documents are new but the issue does not cause him significant injustice. This is because Mr X confirms he already has the documents; there would therefore be no benefit to us investigating this point further.
7. Mr X also believes the Council has illegally shared confidential information with a third party but this issue concerns a possible breach of the GDPR; as such it is more appropriate for consideration by the Information Commissioner.
8. The outcome Mr X seeks in this matter is largely to overturn the Council’s previous decisions, suspend staff and provide compensation to fix the issues with his house. But these points relate to the original building control case and fall outside the scope of this complaint. They are also outcomes which we cannot achieve for Mr X.
9. While Mr X is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we have already considered and decided Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the building control case and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman