The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the maintenance of highway railings. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about freedom of information requests.
The complaint
Mr Y complained the Council lied about repairs to railings, failed to provide information requested and refused to replace the railings.
Mr Y says he finds the railings an eyesore as they are rusty and damaged and feels as if he is a second-class citizen by having the railings on his road.
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 Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Y complained to the Council about the condition of a set of railings near his home which he felt were rusted, unsightly and damaged. The Council responded in September 2022, saying it would not replace the railings. Mr Y also made a Freedom of Information request concerning the money the Council received from Penalty Charge Notices in the area and from parking permits.
The Council responded further in October, explaining it had previously responded to Mr Y’s request for information and referring him to its response. It also said it would not paint the railings as the material they were made out of would not be suitable for this. It said it had assessed the railings as safe earlier in the year, and would not be replacing them, but would add the railings to its regular monitoring. It then referred Mr Y to us.
Analysis Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
While Mr Y is unhappy with the railing and considers them to be unsightly, this is not a significant enough injustice to justify our use of public resources to investigate, as described above. Consequently, we will not investigate.
Mr Y has also complained about the responses he has received in relation to his requests for information or the lack of response given by the Council. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up 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.
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. I consider that to be the case here and Mr Y should therefore approach the ICO about his concerns.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and the ICO is better placed to consider complaints about freedom of information requests.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman