Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s concerns about road safety in his locale. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a useful outcome and FOI matters can reasonably be appealed to the Information Commissioner and so fall outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response to concerns he has raised about road safety in his locale and says his FOI requests have not been responded to.

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.
3. 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.
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 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council in April 2023 about matters concerning road safety in his locale. Unfortunately, the Council mislaid this complaint but replied in June to explain the officers who had been dealing with the matter had left the Council and a new officer had been appointed who offered Mr X a face-to-face meeting with the relevant officers.
8. Mr X declined the offer at this stage stating he first wanted a response to the FOI requests for information he had made which had not been adequately responded to.
9. The Council responded to explain that as the officers who had been dealing with the matter had left the Council and existing officers had limited knowledge of it, it had proposed the face-to-face meeting to agree a way forward.
10. Mr X is dissatisfied with this response and says earlier requests for meetings had been persistently ignored and that his FOI requests were delayed or ignored.
11. There was delay by the Council in responding to Mr X’s complaint. However, it has reasonably offered a face-to-face meeting so existing officers can better understand Mr X’s concerns. If he would like this meeting to take place once his FOI requests have been responded to, this is his decision.
12. If he is dissatisfied with the Council’s response or lack of response to the FOI requests, it is open to him to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. As a right of appeal to the Commissioner exists which we would reasonably expect him to make use of, this matter falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.
13. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. The Council has proposed a way forward to address Mr X’s concerns about road safety where specific details can be taken from him and looked into. This appears to be a practical way forward and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a useful outcome and FOI matters can reasonably be appealed to the Information Commissioner and so fall outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman