Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council is failing to encourage biodiversity on Council-managed land in her area. We could not achieve a worthwhile outcome, there is insufficient personal injustice and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to investigate a complaint about access to information.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council is failing to encourage biodiversity on Council- managed land in her area. She says the Council has misled her and lied to her about the matter, including in responses to her Freedom of Information requests, which has caused distress. She wants the Council to encourage biodiversity, educate residents and apologise to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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))

3. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X states she has been raising concerns about the Council’s approach to biodiversity for several years. In 2024, she complained about its management of an area of Council land near her home that was designated as a biodiversity site. She says in its initial response to her complaint, the Council misled her and provided confusing information about the status of the site.
7. In further complaint responses, the Council apologised for the miscommunication. It clarified its position and said it was yet to make a final decision re: how it would manage the site in the longer term.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has accepted there was a miscommunication in its initial response and apologised to Ms X for this. It has also clarified its position to her. This is what we would expect, and so it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more.
9. In addition, Ms X has been raising her concerns about the Council’s approach to biodiversity for several years. We do not normally investigate where a person’s complaint relates to a wider community or political campaign. Although I accept Ms X disagrees with the Council’s position, I do not consider she has suffered serious personal injustice or loss which would warrant an investigation by us.
10. If Ms X is unhappy with the Council’s responses to her Freedom of Information requests, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome, there is insufficient personal injustice and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about her requests for information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman