Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council linked the complainant to the wrong address. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough outstanding injustice to require an investigation. In addition, Mr X could complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council repeated an error by linking him to a wrong address. Mr X wants compensation and procedural improvements.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered Mr X’s previous complaint to us and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In his previous complaint to us, Mr X complained he had been visited by bailiffs for council tax he did not owe after the Council linked him to the wrong address. We asked the Council to make a symbolic payment of £150.
6. In this second complaint, Mr X complains the Council repeated the error. Mr X made an enquiry about anti-social behaviour via his local councillor. The Council received the enquiry and linked it to the wrong address that was the subject of the council tax complaint (at this point we had not made a decision on the first complaint). The Council made this error because the wrong address was linked to Mr X on the complaints data base because it formed part of the first complaint. The wrong address was referred to as Mr X’s address in the email acknowledgement the Council sent to the councillor.
7. Mr X complained a few days later and the Council corrected the address on the complaints system. The Council accepted it had linked the enquiry to the wrong address, explained how the error occurred, apologised and said it was taking steps to stop the error re-occurring. The Council confirmed Mr X was no longer linked to the wrong address in the council tax or complaints systems. The Council declined to pay compensation.
8. Mr X says seeing the email caused significant distress due to the previous bailiff involvement. He says the Council’s complaint handling was poor and he is worried about the way the Council handles his data. He wants additional service improvements and safeguards, and compensation.
9. I appreciate Mr X felt concerned when he saw the email. However, I will not start an investigation due to the Council’s response explained in paragraph seven. There is nothing more we would ask the Council to do and its response represents a satisfactory remedy.
10. In view of the response, there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation. In the previous complaint, the error led to Mr X being visited by bailiffs. Due to the distress this caused, we asked the Council to pay £150.
11. But, after the second error, there were no consequences other than Mr X’s distress. There was no bailiff or council tax involvement, no financial loss and no impact other than Mr X’s frustration and distress; nothing happened other than the inclusion of the wrong address in an email. I understand Mr X’s strength of feeling about the personal impact, but it does not reach the threshold by which we would ask for a symbolic payment.
12. I agree the Council’s complaint handling could have been better, and Mr X had to chase for a response; but again, while frustrating, this does not represent a level of injustice requiring an investigation.
13. Mr X is concerned about the way the Council manages his personal data. I will not investigate this part of the complaint because he can complain to the Information Commissioner (ICO). It is reasonable to expect him to do this because the ICO is the appropriate organisation to address concerns about personal information.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation. In addition, Mr X can contact the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman