Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s plans to develop a commercial property. There is no evidence of fault and we are unable to achieve the outcome he seeks to overturn the Council’s decision. Also, the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with Mr X’s complaint about Freedom of Information requests.

The complaint

1. Mr complains about the Council’s decision to allow development of an existing commercial site. He says that he and other affected parties were not properly consulted, that he was disadvantaged, as a representative because he was only allowed to ask one question at a meeting about the proposals and that the Council responded late and provided inaccurate information when he made Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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. The Council has provided evidence of the consultation it conducted with interested parties and Mr X expressed his concerns about the scheme. The Council committee considered all relevant information before making its decision.
8. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made this decision and I cannot achieve the outcome sought by Mr X which is to overturn the decision.
9. The Council’s constitution states:

• 10.1 Members of the public who are residents of the Borough, or are a representative of a local firm or organisation, may ask questions.
• 10.4 A person may submit only one question at any one meeting and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation.

10. Therefore, that the Council only allowed Mr X to ask one question during a meeting about the proposals is not fault.
11. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). It is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer his FOI complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault, we cannot achieve the outcome sought, and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman