The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about access to information. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the complaint and the remaining parts of the complaint is late with no good reason to investigate it now.
The complaint
Mr Y complained the Council has failed to respond to a Freedom for Information Act request and where he has received a response it has provided false information and documentation and failed to respond to his complaint.
Mr Y says he feels lied to, disrespected, and not taken seriously about a rubbish problem which he has been complaining about for 20 years.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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, 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 Mr Y and the Council have provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Y has been complaining about various aspects of highways maintenance to the Council since January 1999. He made several requests for repairs to the highways and footpaths on his road in 2019 and others in 2022. It also confirmed in its complaint response that it had fully inspected Mr Y’s road in January 2022 and it had no defects requiring repair.
Mr Y has also made several requests for information. The Council has refused to provide all the information requested for different reasons including commercial sensitivity and that the request made is unreasonable. Mr Y approached us in June 2022.
Analysis Mr Y has made several complaints, dating back to 1999 about the condition of the highway and footpaths. The law says people should normally complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of an issue. Complaints brought to the Ombudsman more than 12 months after someone becomes aware of something a council has done are considered late.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. As Mr Y has not provided any good reasons why he has not brought his complaint to us prior to June 2022 and he has been aware of the issues with the highway for several years, his complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate these late complaints now.
Further, the Council’s complaint response indicates it has carried out several repairs to the highways in response to his contact and explained where it has not acted has given its reasons for not acting. While Mr Y may disagree with the Council’s decisions, as it has considered the issues properly, including making site visits, it is unlikely we would find fault. Consequently, we will not investigate.
Mr Y has also complained about the responses he has received to his Freedom of Information requests. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights.
There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. We will therefore not investigate this complaint.
Mr Y has also complained about how the Council has responded to his complaint.
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. As we are not investigating Mr Y’s substantive complaint, we will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman