Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions and conduct of council officers in relation to the complainant’s telephone call about a penalty charge notice. This is primarily because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice, and it is reasonable to expect him to contact the Information Commissioner about the Council’s handling of his subject access request.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions and conduct of an officer, and subsequently his line manager, in relation to a telephone conversation about his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. With regard to the second and third bullet points above, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means 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. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
4. And in relation to the final bullet point, we normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection, including a council’s response to a subject access request (SAR). However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue(s) being complained about.
6. Finally, the Ombudsman does not reconsider complaints which we have already determined.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• the Ombudsman’s decision on a previous complaint from Mr X.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. For the avoidance of any doubt, and with reference to paragraph 6 above, we will not reconsider any parts of this new complaint which are about the Council refusing to accept a corporate complaint about the handling of Mr X’s representations against the PCN: we have already considered that matter under Mr X’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman.
9. Turning to the current complaint, in the absence of any independent evidence (such as a call recording), an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to be able to establish if the officer acted with fault during the telephone conversation with Mr X, or if the officer’s subsequent written recollection is incorrect.
10. And, with reference to paragraph 3 above, whilst I appreciate Mr X might be unhappy with the officer’s written recollection, I am not persuaded any injustice caused is significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman investigating that particular matter.
11. If Mr X is unhappy with the way the Council handled his associated SAR then, with reference to paragraph 4 above, it seems reasonable to expect him to pursue this aspect of the complaint with the ICO.
12. As we are not investigating the substantive, underlying issues being raised by Mr X, it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate, in isolation, any parts of his complaint about the manager’s handling of the subsequent complaints process.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• we are unlikely to be able to establish whether the officer acted with fault during the telephone conversation.
• the officer’s written recollection of the call does not cause a significant injustice.
• it is reasonable to expect him to contact the ICO about the handling of his SAR.
• it is not a good use of our resources to look at the Council’s complaint process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman