Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the recovery of business rate and council tax debts. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings. There is insufficient fault leading to a significant injustice with how the Council communicate with the complainant about the debts and it is reasonable to expect them to complaint to the Information Commissioner about a data breach.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains about how the Council is pursuing him for business rate and council tax debts. He says the Council issued him with a summons despite saying it would not, sent him a letter with the incorrect date on it, did not properly answer a question he raised, committed a data breach by sharing his email address and did not properly deal with his complaints about these matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. I cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council issued a court summons despite previously saying that it would not. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate matters that have been subject to the start of court proceedings.
8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a letter sent to him had the incorrect date on it. I do not consider this caused Mr X a significant personal injustice, particularly as the Council subsequently reissued the letter with the correct date.
9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not properly respond to his question about what the Council would do if he provided information about the debt, after a summons was issued. This is because the Council fully responded to Mr X’s question and therefore there is no evidence of fault in how it dealt with this matter.
10. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council committed a data breach by sharing his email address. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to complaint to the Information Commissioner about this matter as they are better placed to investigate complaints about data protection
11. Finally, as we are not considering the substantive issues raised by Mr X, it is not a good use of public resources to consider his complaint about how the Council dealt with his complaint. Consequently, I will not investigate this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matter has been subject to court proceedings and there is insufficient fault causing Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman