Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to reports about unauthorised flags. This is because Mr X raised an issue of general concern and has not suffered a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his reports of unauthorised flags on lamp columns. He said it would only remove them if there was a clear and immediate safety risk and declined enforcement action.
2. He said there is a lack of transparent planning decision making. He wants the Council to reconsider its position under the correct statutory framework.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about unauthorised flags and said it should consider them as advertisements under the Town and Country planning Regulations 2007.
8. The Council provided complaint responses before its final response which stated it would not consider Mr X’s complaint further under its corporate complaints policy because it was not within its remit.
9. In its initial response the Council said it would remove flags that were deemed a clear and immediate safety risk. It said it monitored this by monthly driven inspections and walked inspections which take place twice a year.
10. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern, but where they have not suffered injustice.
11. Mr X complained the Council’s response to his Freedom of Information request was not accurate.
12. 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.
13. Mr X complained about the Council’s complaints process. 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

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he raised an issue of general concern and has not suffered a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman