The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s request for information. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide the matter.
The complaint
Mr Y complained there was unacceptable delay in processing his subject access request (SAR).
Mr Y said this caused distress.
Mr Y wants the Council to process his SAR and improve its communication.
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 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 Mr Y.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Y complained the Council did not process his SAR within statutory timeframe.
The Information Commissioner (ICO) enforces data protection legislation. The main functions of the ICO are to uphold information rights in the public interest by promoting openness by public bodies and protecting the privacy of individuals.
We will not investigate this complaint. The ICO is better placed to consider and decide complaints about data protection. This includes delays with SARs.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the ICO is better placed to consider and decide complaints about data protection.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman