Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an outline planning application. The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider data matters. As the planning application has not yet been decided, there is not enough injustice to Mr X from the remaining matters to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council mishandled a planning application. He said it failed to publish his objections, but wrongly named him on a consultee response. He said he was not told the difference between officer and public files. He said the Council wrongly deferred matters that should have been considered at the outline application stage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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))
 

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The matter of publishing Mr X’s name wrongly in a consultee response is an alleged data breach. The matter of whether Mr X must be named for his responses to the planning application to appear on the Council’s planning portal is also a data matter. These are matters the Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider. It has powers to determine if there has been a data breach, and whether a person’s name can be redacted form a public record. We do not.
7. The outline planning application to which Mr X refers has not yet been decided by the Council. Therefore, there is not at this time sufficient injustice to Mr X flowing from the Council’s consideration of the planning application to warrant investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because another body is better placed than us to consider what has personal data has been published on the Council’s website. As there has been no decision yet on the planning application, there is not enough evidence of injustice to Mr X flowing from the Council’s consideration of the application to warrant investigation by us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman