Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a road junction close to the complainant’s home more than ten years ago. Given the passage of time since the decision was made it is too late to complain about this now. Also, if Mr X believes the Council holds incorrect information about him, it is reasonable to expect him to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office on this point.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Councils decision to approve a traffic junction close to his home. He says he has received new information when the Council responded to a subject access request in 2023.
2. He also says the Council hold incorrect information about him.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. 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

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. Mr X says he has received new information which affects the Council’s decision to grant permissions for a major highway junction close to his home. This junction has been in place for more than ten years.
8. Mr X is concerned that the new information shows his property was not considered when the new road layout was approved. However, he was aware of this in 2018 when he commissioned a Road Safety Audit (RSA). This was considered by the Ombudsman under a previous complaint, and I will not revisit the issue again here.
9. I understand Mr X considers the Council is failing to meet the Obligations of the Local Government Transparency Code 2015. However, this requires the Council to publish information about specific subjects including but not limited to
• council expenditure
• salaries
• structure of the organisation
• social land assets
• fraud; and
• the constitution
10. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he believes the Council is failing to publish information in line with the code.
11. Mr X also complains the Council holds information about him, which is not true, some of which he says is defamatory. Under data protection regulations, Mr X has a right to challenge the accuracy of the data the Council holds about him. He can also ask the Council to delete certain information. If he has concerns about this again, it is reasonable to expect him to contact the ICO as this is the body specifically set up0 by parliament to uphold information rights. Defamation is a civil issue which can only be determined by the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• we will not revisit matter which we have previously considered; and
• it is reasonable for him to contact the ICO with complaints about the Council holding incorrect personal information

Also, the junction has been in place for more than ten years and we do not consider that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman