Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to Mr X’s arising from his court action against the Council in 2017. This is because the matters raised are inextricably linked to the court case, so we have no remit to intervene.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X complains the Council ‘defamed’ him in connection with his wife’s personal injury claim brought against the Council in 2017. Mrs X fell over on a ‘hump’ on the pavement and sustained injuries. The Council denied liability and Mr X took action in the courts. His claim was dismissed.
2. Mr X says he continues to raise concerns to avoid anyone else injuring themselves. He has requested further information in connection with the accident location. But he says instead the Council defamed him and refused his request. He says he had to complain to the Information Commissioner’s office, and they instructed the Council to respond to him. He would like an apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. I cannot investigate any matters arising given the substantive issues have already been considered in the courts. I note the alleged defamatory comments were made in the context of describing Mr X’s conduct during and after the court claim.
10. Further, that the Information Commissioner’s office has told the Council recently to provide Mr X with the information requested, does not mean the Ombudsman should also investigate whether the Council was wrong or right to deny his initial request. This would be ‘double handling’ and not a good use of public monies. So, there are no grounds for me to ask the Council to apologise to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I cannot investigate any aspect of Mr X’s complaint given it is inextricably linked to his court case. And there are no grounds for me to ask the Council to apologise to Mr X for not providing him with the information he initially requested.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman