Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information and its poor complaint handling. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office if she believes the Council is withholding information. And we do not consider an apology for poor complaint handling to be a worthwhile outcome to an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to respond properly to her concerns about repeated unauthorised encampments on the recreation ground near her home.
2. She says she has experienced loss of use and enjoyment of the local park because of the Council’s failure to prevent the encampments or mitigate the risk.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council has confirmed it starts legal eviction proceedings as soon as it is made aware of illegal encampments. It has also confirmed why a new barrier was ordered for one entrance of the park. It also confirmed no further finance for mitigation or prevention work was available until the new financial year.
8. I understand Ms X wants an investigation and for us to require the Council to provide information on:
• how it prioritises sites for preventative measures;
• details of risk assessment, mitigation and decision-making;
• to explain what remedy or interim mitigation is appropriate; and
• to apologise for poor complaint handling.
9. I consider it reasonable for Ms X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if she believes the Council has failed to provide her with information to which she is entitled.
10. We consider it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures alone, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we consider it is reasonable for her to complain to the ICO if she believes the Council is withholding information. And we do not consider an apology for poor complaint handling to be a worthwhile outcome which justifies an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman