The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s updates to him when dealing with his complaint about anti-social behaviour because any injustice is not significant enough.
The complaint
Mr Z complains the Council did not update him properly about its investigation of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
Mr Z also complains the Council did not respond to his subject access request for information within the legal timeframe.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 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, section 34(B)) 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.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Z asked the Council to arrange an ASB case review. This is a mechanism for requesting a review of the handling of ASB cases by relevant bodies. He says he had to request updates multiple times, get a Councillor and MP involved and make three corporate complaints.
The Council says Mr Z’s report did not meet the ASB case review threshold. However, it says it worked on the case with other agencies including a housing association and the police. Noise abatement notices and an injunction were issued.
The Council says it initially gave Mr Z clear updates and information. It accepts it could have provided better updates when one of the other agencies was leading the case.
I will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the way the Council communicated with him because any injustice is not significant enough.
I will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about his subject access request because the ICO is better placed to deal with it.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman