Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly linking Mr X’s council tax account with another person with a very similar name to him. He says this meant his personal information was accessible to the other individual. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider his complaint about the Council mishandling his data.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council incorrectly linked his council tax account with another person who had a very similar name to him. He says the Council was slow to fix the issue. He also complains his personal information was accessible to the other individual due to his account being linked to the other person.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• investigation would not lead to a different findings or outcomes, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. During its complaint investigation, the Council accepted there had been an administrative error with Mr X’s council tax account. The Council explained that when Mr X’s council tax account was set up, it was accidentally linked to an individual that had a very similar name to Mr X.
6. The Council confirmed all bills and reminders sent to Mr X were related to his council tax charges, and not related to the individual that had been accidentally linked to Mr X’s council tax account. As Mr X did not make the required payments, Mr X’s council tax fell into arrears and the Council sent Mr X’s debt to enforcement agents.
7. The Council accepted its enforcement agents should have closed their case in January 2023. However, the Council confirmed the matter was resolved and Mr X settled his account in full in January 2023.
8. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. The Council has acknowledged there was an administrative fault and apologised for this. This was appropriate. However, this fault did not mean Mr X did not have to pay for his council tax charges. Mr X was aware of his charges as the Council appropriately provided Mr X with his bill and sent reminders before it issued a summons. In addition, the matter is also now resolved as Mr X has settled his council tax account. I am satisfied no further remedy is necessary given the circumstances.
9. Finally, any complaint about data handling is for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Therefore, it would be reasonable for Mr X to bring his concerns about the Council mishandling his data to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider his complaint about the Council mishandling his data.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman