Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application because the injustice she claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation. If Miss X believes the Council breached the General Data Protection Regulation it would be reasonable for her to take the matter to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. She says the Council breached the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by publishing her personal information online, deleted objections from the online casefile and colluded with the applicant to remove reference to pre-application planning advice. She says this caused her undue stress and inconvenience.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. It is for the Information Commissioner, rather than the Ombudsman, to decide if the Council breached the GDPR. The Information Commissioner is the expert in the subject and it would be reasonable for Miss X to take this issue to them.
7. While the removal of objections and reference to pre-application advice are separate issues I have seen nothing to show they caused Miss X significant injustice. The Council has explained the objections were removed in error due to an automated data retention process but that they were restored once it became aware of the issue. I appreciate Miss X is concerned that the Council suggested and allowed removal of the reference to pre-application planning advice but we could not say this, or the temporary removal of the objections, wrongly affected the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. If Miss X believes the decision is flawed she may wish to seek legal advice about challenging it at court. But we will not investigate these issues further as the stress and inconvenience she claims is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the alleged breach of the GDPR is a matter for the Information Commissioner and the Council’s actions did not cause Miss X significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman