Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling and enforcement of recovery action for Mr X’s unpaid council tax debt. This is because the complaint involves a disagreement about how the relevant law should be interpreted, and this would best be for a court to decide.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has failed to provide evidence of its appointed Enforcement Agent’s (EA) identity or authority to enter his premises and says the Council is therefore in breach of the law. Mr X says he feels distressed and frustrated that the EA could enter his home. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his request for information under a Subject Access Request (SAR).

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. This includes council’s not responding to requests for information. 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. The Council says that although no EA has attended Mr X’s property, the EA is legally entitled to enter under the relevant law. It says that it does not need to provide a paper copy of the court-issued liability order for the EA’s entry to be lawful. It also says it does not need to provide the EA’s identity, but the EA should provide this when attending the premises. It has advised Mr X how to certify the identity of an EA. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view and believes it is in breach of the law.
8. This matter is about conflicting interpretations of the law. We have no power to interpret the law so it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to a court of law which can. An investigation by the Ombudsman could not give Mr X the result he wants.
9. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his SAR is best considered by the ICO as the body set up by Parliament to consider such matters. It has far wider powers than the Ombudsman to resolve complaints about information handling.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to take the matter to court. The ICO is best placed to deal with concerns about the Council’s response to Mr X’s SAR.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman