Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s failure to return the pension notifications provided as part of his application for council tax support. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y’s complains about the Council’s failure to return the pension notifications that he provided as part of his application for council tax support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating

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

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.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In May 2024, Mr Y went to a Council office to hand deliver original versions of his pension notifications. He provided these documents as part of his application for council tax support.
8. In July, Mr Y complained to the Council that it had failed to return the original documents.
9. In the Council’s complaint responses, it explained it has a system in place whereby it usually returns any documents by post after they have been scanned and held for one week. I have not seen evidence that this system did not work in Mr Y’s case. The documents may have been lost by the postal service. Based on this, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating Mr Y’s complaint.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive part of Mr Y’s complaint, it would not be proportionate for us to look at the complaint about the Council’s complaint handling alone.
11. Mr Y said he is unhappy with the Council’s handling of sensitive information. It is reasonable to expect Mr Y to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner as it is best placed to consider any further concerns Mr Y has about the Council’s data handling.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman