Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the language used by the Council when closing a planning enforcement case, and about its handling of an associated subject access request. The injustice caused is not significant enough to justify pursuing the matter further, and the ICO is better placed to consider any ongoing data handling concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that when the Council wrote to him about the closure of a planning enforcement investigation into the use of his outbuilding, it said this followed the use being “monitored”. He says this language implied his property was under surveillance, and caused serious anxiety and distress to him, particularly as a disabled person, and to his young family.
2. Mr X also complains the Council failed to respond to his associated subject access request (SAR) in time and it withheld documents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. With regard to the first bullet point above, 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 by an organisation.
6. And in relation to the second bullet point, we normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection, which includes SARs. 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

7. I considered information provided by Mr X, which included his complaint correspondence with the Council.
8. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. I acknowledge the impact Mr X says the Council’s language had on him and his family. But, on balance, I am not persuaded the extent of the injustice caused is so significant as to justify the Ombudsman pursuing the matter further. The Council has acknowledged the use of the word “monitored” was misleading, and should have said “investigated” instead. It has apologised for this. I am also mindful that the email in question confirmed the planning enforcement case was being closed, which would suggest any investigation/monitoring had already ended.
10. And in relation to the Council’s handling of Mr X’s SAR, the ICO has already found the Council delayed in providing some information and said it should provide an explanation for withholding other information. The Council has apologised for the delay and explained why it would not share the other information. Any injustice arising from the delay is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by us. And if Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s explanation for withholding information, he should raise this with the ICO, which is better placed to consider data handling complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify pursuing the matter further, and the ICO is better placed to consider any ongoing data handling concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman