The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that underhand methods were allowed to be used to manipulate a public consultation for two proposed cycle schemes. This is because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter. Complaints about how the Council responded to requests for information about the schemes are better considered by the Information Commissioner.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will call Mrs X, complains that underhand methods were used to manipulate the results of a public consultation for two proposed cycle schemes. She says a campaigner posted a link to the consultation survey on social media encouraging showing other cyclists how to complete the survey, which Mrs X felt could manipulate the outcome of the consultation. Mrs X also complained about how the Council responded to her requests for information about these and other schemes.
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council allowed its consultation exercise to be manipulated. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The individual who submitted the social media post was not a Council officer, and therefore the Council had no control over what they posted on social media. Once the Consultation was completed the results of the consultation were recorded in a report, which showed that comments were received both for and against the scheme. These comments were responded to within the report and considered before a final decision was made. Whilst Mrs X may strongly disagree with the schemes, I see no evidence of fault in how the consultation process was managed.
I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her requests for information about this and other schemes, which were responded to as Freedom of Information requests. This is because it would be reasonable to expect Mrs X to complain to the Information Commissioner who is better placed to investigate such complaints.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council managed the consultation process and it would be reasonable for her to complaint to the Information Commissioner about how it deal with here requests for information.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman