The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council communicated with him regarding his Freedom of Information requests. This is because the matter has not caused him a significant injustice.
The complaint
Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with his Freedom of Information (FoI) requests and about how they communicated with him about these matters.
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)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner 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
I will not investigate how the Council has dealt with Mr X’s FoI requests. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider these matters.
I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has communicated with him about these matters. This is because I do not consider that this has caused him a significant enough injustice to warrant our further involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matter has not caused him a significant enough injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman