Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay in the Council acting to remove an unlawful encampment in a park in the town where Mr X lives. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action. Also, we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions. And it is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Officer about a failure to provide him with information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take prompt enforcement action against an unlawful encampment in a local park.
2. He also complains the Council failed to respond within the specified timeframe to a letter before claim and failed to respond to requests for information.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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))

4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In assessing complaints, we consider what injustice this has caused the complainant.
8. Mr X says he has been put to time and trouble in continuing his complaint. And the Council’s delays caused frustration and stress.
9. The Council confirms a notice was served against both people known and unknown, who visited the site concerned. This advised the Council would be seeking a possession order in the County Court. It was advised the site was vacated in December and, as there was no evidence of an intention of individuals to return, it discontinued with proceedings
10. The encampment was first reported to the Council in June. I recognise Mr X found the delay between the Council being made aware of the matter and the site being vacated frustrating. However the Council advised various people to have camped at the site at different times. Some individuals moved on without formal legal action being taken. However, others moved on and then returned. This meant the Council had to pause legal processes and then restart when individuals returned.
11. From the information I have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions in dealing with the removal of the unauthorised encampment.
12. I understand Mr X has spent time pursuing his complaint and accept this may have been frustrating and time-consuming. I also understand he says the Council failed to respond to his letter before claim within the specified timeframe. However, I do not consider this injustice to be so significant as to justify an investigation.
13. Turning to Mr X’s complaint that he has not received information to which he is entitled. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on this point. The ICO is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations respond to requests for information.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• There is not enough evidence of fault to justify the Council’s actions.
• We do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice to justify an investigation; and
• It is reasonable to expect him to complain to the ICO about a failure to provide information he is seeking.
   

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman