Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about issues relating to the complainant’s boat mooring. This is because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted the Ombudsman sooner, and to raise freedom of information/subject access request concerns with the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms B, raises issues relating to her boat mooring. These include:
• Experiencing a four-year campaign of personal harassment, discrimination and inappropriate conduct from a Council officer, and associated incompetent line management;
• Failure to conduct the complaints process properly;
• Illegal destruction of files;
• Failure to provide information requested under Freedom of Information (FoI) requests
• Failure to comply fully with a Subject Access Request (SAR);
• Slanderous statements recorded as fact in emails and other documents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. And we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) 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.
6. Finally, we also normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection/subject access requests. 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

7. I have considered:
• Ms B’s complaint to the Ombudsman;
• Copies of correspondence between Ms B, the Council and councillors.
8. I also gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

9. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 3 above applies to much of Ms B’s complaint. This is because I understand she completed the Council’s complaints process in May 2016, and the Council responded to some FoI requests in late-2016. Ms B did not contact the Ombudsman until October 2019. I see no reasons what Ms B was prevented from complaining to us sooner, so I do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate any parts of Ms B’s complaint about these events now.
10. Furthermore, if Ms B was dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her FoI requests, then it seems reasonable for her to have referred the matter to the ICO. So, with reference to paragraphs 4 and 5 above, any parts of the complaint about the FoI requests would be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction for this reason also.
11. I understand Ms B also submitted a SAR to the Council in April 2019. If she was unhappy with the Council’s response, then it was again open to her to pursue her concerns with the ICO. I consider it reasonable to expect Ms B to have done so, particularly given the ICO’s expertise in dealing with such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint. This is because parts of the complaint are late, and it is reasonable to expect Ms B to pursue any concerns about her FoI requests and SAR with the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman