Summary: Mr X complains about the impact on him of the Council’s attempts to recover an outstanding council tax debt belonging to a third party. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains that he was sent a letter about a council tax debt which was not in his name and which related to a property he had no connection with. He says the Council did not reply to his concerns and he spent time and trouble trying to resolve matters which had a detrimental effect on his already poor health. He wants the Council to apologise for billing him for a debt which is not his, compensation and confirmation he is not liable for it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. In March 2020, enforcement agents acting for the Council in the collection of an outstanding council tax debt owed by Mr X’s daughter traced her to Mr X’s address having received information from two different trace agencies.
6. The agents wrote a letter to Mr X’s daughter about the debt and sent it to Mr X’s address. Mr X opened the letter and discovered its contents. Concerned because the debt was not his, that neither his daughter nor her previous partner lived at his address and because he feared there had been a breach of data protection, he contacted two MPs with his complaint against the Council and its agents.
7. A Council officer wrote to Mr X to confirm that it had received his complaint about a possible data breach and it would be responding shortly. The officer told Mr X that in the meantime he could call and speak to her directly if he wanted.
8. As the two MPs had made the complaint on Mr X’s behalf, the Council responded to them both at the end of March to clarify the situation. It explained the information received from the trace agencies about Mr X’s daughter’s current address and that there had been no data breach. It noted Mr X had opened a letter which had not been addressed to him rather than returning it to the sender. It suggested Mr X contact the trace agencies so they could update their records to show his daughter did not live at Mr X’s address. It confirmed the Council and its agents had updated their records to show his daughter’s current address was not Mr X’s.
9. While the MPs were sent the above-mentioned letter, it appears Mr X was unaware of the response and then became involved with a number of different bodies, including the Information Commissioner’s Office, about his concerns.
10. In October one of the MPs, who had been contacted again by Mr X, contacted the Council about his case and it emailed her back to advise it had replied to her and the other MP in March. It sent a further copy of the letter and it did not hear back from her to its query as to whether she had received the copy sent in March. In November, when Mr X rang the Council, he was told of the letter sent to the MPs in March.
11. In December, the Council responded to Mr X’s formal complaint about these matters. It confirmed he had never been billed for the council tax debt, he was not liable for it and had never been recorded as being so. It said it had responded to the complaint he had raised via the MPs in March and that it had had no further contact from him until November. It found no fault in its actions, no data breach and no grounds to award compensation.
12. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

13. While I understand these matters have caused Mr X distress, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome. The Council told the MPs who had contacted it in March 2020 on behalf of Mr X that he had no liability for the debt and that its and its agents’ records had been updated to show his address was not his daughter’s current address.
14. Unfortunately, it appears neither of the MPs passed on the details of the March letter to Mr X and that the MP who made contact with the Council in October did not receive/act on the emails the Council sent to her to advise it had addressed the matter back in March. However, the Council did not hear from Mr X again until November and it subsequently addressed his complaint under its complaints procedure.
15. Mr X has raised his data protection concerns with the Information Commissioner and having done so we will not investigate them.
16. In responding to my draft decision Mr X has referred to his disappointment that neither of the MPs got in touch with him having received the March 2020 letter. He has also referred to the findings of the Information Commissioner in connection with his case. However, the Council is not responsible for the actions of the MPs and we will not investigate a matter which the Information Commissioner has already investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman