Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an incident at Ms Y’s premises and the Council’s subsequent complaint-handling. The main substantive point complained of is late without good reason to investigate it now. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about an incident at Ms Y’s premises and about the Council’s handling of his complaints.

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. 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)
3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The complaint arose from an incident in November 2022. For confidentiality reasons I will not give details, but it involved the conduct of a Council officer at Ms X’s business premises. Ms X has a disability (again, I am not giving details to protect anonymity). Mr Y has helped Ms X with this matter from the outset.
9. Mr Y sent a complaint to the Council in November 2022. On 24 January 2023 the Council emailed Mr X saying it would not deal with the complaint because it understood there was a police investigation. The Council said Mr X could come to us and gave our contact details. On 31 January 2023 the Council reiterated ‘…this matter will remain closed.’ There was no complaint to us until June 2024, around 19 months after the incident and 17 months after the Council signposted us. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
10. Between January 2023 and June 2024, Mr X resubmitted the complaint to the Council in March 2023. He chased a response in June 2023, when the Council apologised for not replying, said it was reviewing the concerns and would be in touch as soon as possible. Having heard nothing, Mr X chased various people at the Council between October 2023 and March 2024.
11. I note Ms X’s disability might affect her ability to pursue matters. However, Mr Y was involved from early on, he was obviously capable of pursuing matters and he knew our contact details in January 2023. So Ms X’s disability is not in itself good enough reason for us to accept the late complaint to us now.
12. In January 2023 the Council said the next step was to complain to us. So Mr X had no good reason then to believe he should continue pursuing the matter with the Council. He could reasonably have complained to us then.
13. Even if Mr X thought he should go back to the Council (which was unnecessary), it was clear enough a month or two after the Council’s holding response in June 2023 that nothing substantive had happened with the complaint. Mr X could reasonably have come to us then, which would have been within 12 months of the incident.
14. From December 2023 Mr X said he understood a councillor was intending to get back to him. However, that was already more than 12 months after the incident and was not a good reason to wait so long before complaining to us. I am not persuaded Mr X’s choice to keep chasing the Council periodically for so long merits us investigating now. Also, even after Mr X last chased the Council in March 2024, there was no complaint to us for another three months.
15. Overall, I am not persuaded there is good enough reason for us to accept this late complaint now.
16. Mr X says the Council broke data protection law by an officer filming Ms Y including after she asked for that to stop. The Information Commissioner is better placed than the Ombudsman to decide such matters. I do not see good enough reason for us, rather than the Information Commissioner, to consider this point.
17. Mr X is also dissatisfied with how the Council handled his complaints. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate this complaint. The complaint about the incident at Ms X’s premises is late without good reason to investigate it now. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation. The complaint about personal data is more appropriately for the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman