The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council declining to give him information about its investigation into an officer regarding a data protection matter, and it not replying to some of his correspondence. The Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to consider the matter and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it. It would be reasonable for Mr X to refer the Council’s freedom of information responses to the First Tier Tribunal. We do not investigate council correspondence or complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.
The complaint
Mr X reported to the Council that he had been contacted by one of its staff, not on Council business. He believes the officer obtained his personal information improperly. Mr X complains the Council: has declined to give him access to information about its investigation of the matter and the outcome; has not thoroughly investigated the officer; did not reply to some of his correspondence.
Mr X wants to know the outcome of the Council’s investigation, to determine whether the officer committed a crime so he may report it.
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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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) The ICO 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 from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s core complaint relates to data protection and the Council’s response to his request for information about its investigation process and its outcome. Where someone has a complaint about data protection and disclosure issues, the Ombudsman usually expects them to take the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
The ICO is better placed to consider this complaint. It is the UK’s independent authority created to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes how authorities store and manage access to information they hold about individuals and how they respond to requests to access information.
Mr X may wish to make formal requests to the Council for the information he wants about how the Council has investigated and its outcome. He may make subject access or freedom of information requests to the Council. If he remains dissatisfied with the replies he receives, he can refer the matter to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights).
There are no good reasons for us to investigate the complaint because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider it.
If Mr X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s responses, he has the right to put the matter before the First Tier Tribunal, the formal route provided by the legislation which it would be reasonable for him to use.
Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his correspondence about the matter. We do not investigate councils’ correspondence or complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the substantive matter. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: the Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to consider the matter and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it; and if he is dissatisfied with the Council’s freedom of information responses, it would be reasonable for him to refer the matter to the First Tier Tribunal; and we do not investigate councils’ correspondence or complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman