Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to respond fully to his subject access request, his concerns about the Council’s response to his use of CCTV, or the Council’s response to his reports of anti-social behaviour. Mr X can take part of the complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, and an investigation into the other matters is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• failed to provide him with a full response to his Subject Access Request (SAR);
• incorrectly told him he could not use CCTV outside his home; and
• failed to respond to his complaints of anti-social behaviour.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection or data processing. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not respond fully to his SAR.
8. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better suited to consider this type of complaint. Parliament set up the ICO to consider data processing disputes, including SARs. The ICO is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider whether the Council has responded fully to Mr X’s request. I have seen no good reason the Ombudsman should investigate in place of the ICO, and therefore we will not investigate this complaint.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council told him he must change the position of his CCTV cameras.
10. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it had provided Mr X with incorrect information about the use of CCTV on his property. It said it had considered the guidance provided by the ICO on the use of CCTV and provided training to its staff on the subject. It also apologised to Mr X. An investigation into this matter is unlikely to achieve a different outcome, and so we will not investigate this complaint.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to act on his complaints of anti-social behaviour.
12. This is because, in its complaint response, the Council explained actions it had taken including liaising with the police and other agencies in response to Mr X’s reports of ASB. An investigation into these matters is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome, and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Part of the complaint would be better considered by the Information Commissioner. Investigation into the remaining parts of Mr X’s complaint is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman