Ministry of Justice (MoJ)

4. Mr A complains about the time the MoJ took to process his right of access request between September and November 2021. He also complains about the time it took the MoJ to respond to his subsequent complaint about this delay.

5. He says the failure to respond has caused him considerable distress and inconvenience to have to chase.

6. As an outcome he is seeking a financial remedy.

7. On 13 September 2021 the MoJ received Mr A’s SAR. On 21 October the MoJ issued its response to this request, seeking further information from Mr A.

8. On 27 October 2021 Mr A sent a follow-up request to the MoJ, also complaining about the service he received. On 24 November the MoJ says it provided its complaint response. Mr A disagrees with this and says the response was received in May 2022.

Response to SAR 11. Mr A says the MoJ took too long to respond to his SAR.

12. The MoJ’s information charter outlines if a party thinks that their information has not been handled correctly, they can contact the Information Commissioner for independent advice about data protection.

13. The Principles outline how we expect all public bodies must comply with the law and have regard for the rights of those concerned. They should act according to their statutory powers and duties, and any other rules governing the service they provide. They should follow their own policy and procedural guidance on complaint handling, whether published or internal.

14. In its final response letter dated 23 November 2021 the MoJ outlined how Mr A could appeal to the ICO if he is unhappy with the outcome of the review. This advice is correct and follows the MoJ’s information charter on the next stage of the complaint process. Therefore, the information provided by the MoJ is in line with the Principles in relation to an organisation following their own policy and procedural guidance. We have seen no indications anything went wrong with the MoJ signposting Mr A to the ICO.

15. We hope our explanation provides reassurances to Mr A about the information given to him by the MoJ in relation to taking his complaint further.

Complaint investigation 16. Mr A complains the MoJ took too long to respond to his complaint about the processing of his SAR.

17. The MoJ complaints procedure outlines how it aims to reply to all complaints within 20 working days. If it cannot resolve the complaint, it will tell the complainant what steps they can take if they want their complaint to be further investigated.

18. The Complaint Standards say we expect organisations to make sure they respond to complaints at the earliest opportunity. They should consistently meet expected timescales for acknowledging a complaint. They should also give clear timeframes for how long it will take to investigate the issues, considering the complexity of the matter. The Complaint Standards say we expect organisations to ensure all parties know the steps they will take to investigate the complaint.

19. The MoJ has explained that due to its data retention policy, it no longer has any evidence available relating to Mr A’s SAR and subsequent complaint in 2021. It has provided limited data from its complaint management system, which we have considered alongside Mr A’s own records.

20. The MoJ explains its complaints system shows it received a follow-up complaint from Mr A about the processing of his SAR on approximately 27 October 2021. Under the MoJ’s complaints process, it was due to respond twenty working days later on 24 November 2021. The complaint was logged on 3 November and the final response was dated 24 November.

21. In his complaint to our service, we can see Mr A disagrees with the MoJ’s account. Mr A provided a copy of an email in his evidence pack from the MoJ dated17 January 2022, in which the MoJ sent him a copy of its response dated 23 November. In the email the MoJ maintains it sent a hard copy of the response to Mr A the day after, on 24 November, however it subsequently apologised for any delay that occurred with Mr A receiving this.

22. We discussed the delay with the MOJ and it acknowledged that its response to Mr A’s complaint was issued 33 days late. It explained that two HMCTS teams took time to decide who would take the request forward and potentially this caused a delay. It has no further explanation to say what caused the subsequent delay.

23. Mr A has provided evidence which indicates the MoJ first sent the final response was to him by email on 17 January 2022, instead of the 20 working days outlined in its complaints procedure. Mr A maintains he did not receive this until this date, and we have no reason to dispute his recollection. Ultimately this delay is contrary to the MoJ’s complaints policy of issuing a final response within 20 working days, and the Complaint Standards of ensuring an organisation responds to complaints at the earliest convenience. For these reasons, we accept there is an indication that the MoJ acted maladministratively.

24. As an impact of the delayed investigation response, Mr A explains this caused him considerable distress and inconvenience to have to chase during this two-month period. We are sorry to hear of the difficulties Mr A has described as being attributable to the time he had to wait for the response letter. Clearly this was a stressful period for him.

25. Where maladministration or poor service has led to injustice or hardship, we consider whether it is proportionate for an organisation to take any further steps to provide an appropriate remedy.

26. As an outcome of bringing the complaint to our service, Mr A is solely seeking a financial remedy to recognise the impact the delay had on him.

27. We have considered the Complaint Standards outline how we expect organisations to openly identify instances where things have gone wrong, or where services have had an unfair impact, and take responsibility for these. They make sure colleagues can offer a range of ways to put things right for the service user. They should give sincere and meaningful apologies that reflect the impact experienced.

28. In its email to Mr A in January 2022, the MoJ has acknowledged distress caused by the delays in sending the response and apologised for this. We are satisfied this action is in line with the Complaint Standards, as the MoJ has identified the delay, acknowledged the impact and apologised for this.

29. For completeness we have considered Mr A’s request for a financial remedy against the PHSO’s guidance on financial remedy, which explains when we identify an issue relates to a one-off instance of maladministration, in which the impact has been generally of a low level for a short duration, we would not consider financial remedy is required.

30. We are satisfied any delay is likely to have resulted from a one-off instance of maladministration. We accept that this caused him inconvenience and frustration for a relatively short duration and consider there were no other adverse effects or impacts. Therefore, we consider the apology already provided by the MoJ is an appropriate remedy in this case. We recognise Mr A will be disappointed with our decision and trust he will find the explanations above helpful.

1. Mr A complains about the MoJ’s handling of his Subject Access Request (SAR) and the time taken to investigate his subsequent complaint.

2. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint. We have seen no indications of a failing in the MoJ signposting Mr A to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Further, we are satisfied the MoJ has taken appropriate action in respect of the delays in its handling of his complaint to remedy the impact he experienced.

3. Mr A came to us because he believed the MoJ had taken too long to consider his SAR and subsequent complaint. We have carefully considered his concerns and hope Mr A finds the information and explanations we have provided helpful to understand why we are taking no further action.