The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about administrative failings by the coroner’s officer. The complainant has not suffered personal injustice from these faults alone to justify an investigation. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider complaints about access to information. Also, complaints about the coroner’s investigation are outside our jurisdiction.
The complaint
I shall call the complainant Mr X and his late mother as Mrs Y.
Mr X complains the coroner’s office: failed or delayed in responding to emails and telephone calls; and delayed and failed to provide copies of all information he requested He is also dissatisfied with the way the Council responded to his complaint.
Mr X wants to know why it was difficult to speak to the correct officers and get information about a specific officer’s employment history. He also has queries about the coroner’s investigation, the cause of death and other medical questions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: any 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)) 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.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The majority of Mr X’s complaints concern the investigation carried out by the Coroner, which is outside our jurisdiction. His concerns about the care Mrs Y received while in a residential home should be addressed by either the care home or the Council, whichever made the arrangements for Mrs Y. If Mr X remains dissatisfied with the response he receives, he can ask us to consider a new complaint about these issues.
The remaining concerns are: a lack of response to phone calls and/or emails the coroner’s office responded to the complaint about its service; and failure to provide all information requested.
I have seen no evidence of fault in the complaints’ procedure. I understand that Mr X is unhappy with the service responding to a complaint about its own actions. However, it is not unusual for the service provider to deal with its own complaints.
The service apologised to delays in returning Mr X’s calls and emails. It also apologised for including the incorrect date of death in one of its letters to him and for missing pages when he asked for copies of documents.
I understand Mr X may have found corresponding with the coroner’s officer frustrating and at times upsetting. However, I do not consider the failure or delays to respond to some telephone calls and/ or emails has, on its own, caused sufficient personal injustice to warrant an investigation. The apology is an appropriate remedy to this complaint.
If Mr X remains dissatisfied in the response to his request for information, I do not consider it unreasonable to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to investigate. This is because the ICO has specific powers and expertise to look into access to information issues. It also has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough injustice caused by the administrative faults alone to justify an investigation.
If Mr X remains dissatisfied with the way the Council responded to his request for information, it is reasonable to expect him to complain to the ICO.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman