Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not send a council tax summons to the correct address. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council sent council tax letters, including a summons, to the wrong address even though he had given the Council his new address. Mr X wants an apology, refund, compensation and an overhaul of the system.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) 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. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the email he sent giving his new address. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X owns a flat which he rents to tenants. Mr X is the leaseholder of the flat and pays service charges to the Council. In November 2018 he told the Council’s homeowners department he had moved from property one to property two. He quoted the service charge account number for the flat. He did not refer to council tax or ask for the information to be shared with other departments.
6. The tenants left the flat in December 2018. Mr X, as the landlord, was liable for the council tax until new tenants moved in. The Council sent a council tax bill to Mr X at property one. Mr X did not receive it. The bill was returned to the Council. The Council (council tax) re-issued the bill to the flat as it was the only other address it had for Mr X. Mr X did not pay so the Council sent a summons to the flat. The court subsequently issued a liability order for £222 which included costs.
7. The Council issued new bills and letters in January, March and June 2021, which referred to the outstanding £222. In July 2021 the Council asked bailiffs to collect the £222. Mr X says he may have overlooked some of the correspondence in 2021 and only became aware of the debt after bailiffs were involved. He paid but wants a refund of the costs because the Council did not send the summons to the correct address.
8. In response to his complaint the Council said Mr X only gave the homeowners team his new address and data cannot be shared between different departments due to data protection. It said he had not given the council tax team his new address so the Council could only send the summons to the flat.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X did not give the council tax department his new address so the council tax team had no alternative address other than the flat. The Council has explained why it cannot share information between different departments. Mr X disagrees and says the Council can share information between departments. But, even if that is correct, it does not affect the complaint. Mr X did not give the council tax department his new address and there is no requirement for a council to contact other departments to find out if an address might have been provided to another service area. It is the responsibility of the tax payer to provide a current address to the relevant department.
10. Mr X has referred to a LGO decision when we found a council had failed to use an address the tax payer had provided. But, in that case, the person had provided the address to the same department or to a department closely linked to the department that issued the summons. In that case we said the tax payer had provided his address to an appropriate department. But, in this case, Mr X only provided his new address to an unrelated department.
11. Mr X could complain to the ICO as he disagrees that the Council could not share data between departments. It is reasonable to expect him to do this because the ICO is the appropriate body to consider complaints about data handling. But, as I have said, even if the Council could have shared the information there was no reason for it to have done so.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could complain to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman