Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged corruption by the Council and a failure to provide information. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained about corruption between the Council and two broadband providers. Ms X said the Council gave the broadband providers permission to work on the public highway, causing damage to properties and power cuts. Ms X says the Council has failed to provide detailed contact information for the providers. Ms X wants this information so she can take legal action against them.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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))

4. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(1), as amended)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. This includes access to information. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. From the information I have seen, Ms X contacted the Council as she had not received a response from one of the broadband providers. The Council contacted the provider and it said it will respond to Ms X.
9. While I recognise Ms X’s frustrations, we will not start an investigation into her complaint. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. We use our Assessment Code to decide which complaints to investigate. We only look at the most serious complaints. We also need to consider the likelihood of finding fault and if another body is better placed to consider the complaint.
10. Based on the information I have seen there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating. I have seen no evidence of corruption by the Council. It contacted the broadband provider mentioned by Ms X when she emailed the Council. The name of the providers is enough for Ms X to take legal action. Ms X has this information. The Council is not responsible if one of the broadband providers has not responded to Ms X. The Council is also not responsible for the alleged damage. If Ms X feels the Council is not providing information she is entitled to then she could contact the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman