Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about her recent contact with Council officers over various matters linked to business parking permits. We have previously investigated some of the matters complained of. Other matters have not caused Ms B significant injustice. And another body is better placed to consider another part of her complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Ms B, complained about various matters regarding her contact with officers at the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. The matters complained of include the Council’s apology following a previous investigation by us, and the actions of officers and their contact with Ms B.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the 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), as amended)

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Ms B and the Council provided. I considered our decision on Ms B’s previous complaint to us. And I considered Ms B’s response to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about subject access requests. So where we receive complaints about a council’s failure to respond (or a failure to respond properly) to a subject access request, we normally consider it reasonable for the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
6. The ICO may also consider complaints about a council’s handling and processing of data.
7. We do not reconsider issues already addressed in response to a previous complaint.

Key facts

8. Ms B complained to us previously about how the Council administered business parking permits and how it replies to her communications, including whether it requires her to use a single point of contact with the Council. We found some fault with the Council. We asked it to apologise to Ms B and to review whether it should cancel any outstanding penalty charge notices she had received. We were satisfied that the Council took the action we recommended.
9. Ms B’s current complaint is about the following:

• the Council’s apology following our investigation of her previous complaint;
• its review of the penalty charge notices;
• other issues related to the previous complaint, including that the Council had given her a single point of contact;
• the role of officers and whether they have delegated authority for the action they took;
• about the actions of two officers and their sometimes unwelcome and inappropriate contact with her;
• about a subject access request and document destruction.

10. Ms B has contacted the ICO about her subject access request.
11. The Council has responded to Ms B’s contact about these matters, but she remains dissatisfied. She said that, since we completed our investigation of her previous complaint, the Council now requires her to use a single point of contact.

Analysis

12. We will not investigate this complaint.
13. The first three bullet points in paragraph 9 are related to our investigation of Ms B’s previous complaint. I recognise that she may not be happy with the Council’s actions. However, the Council did what we recommended, and we were satisfied with the action it took. We do not reconsider issues already addressed in response to a previous complaint, and so we will not investigate these matters again.
14. Ms B also complained about the role of officers and whether they had delegated authority for the action they took, as well as the actions of two officers and their contact with her. Even if the officers were at fault in the way Ms B alleged, the fault has not caused her significant injustice.
15. Ms B is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of her subject access request and its document destruction. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with these matters, so we will not investigate them.
16. Ms B said the Council now requires her to use a single point of contact. She said this has happened since we decided her previous complaint. If this is the case, and Ms B thinks the way the Council reached its decision to limit her contact is faulty, she should first complain to the Council before making a new complaint to us.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint for the reasons given in the Analysis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman