Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to change council tax account. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence the Council acted with fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Wrongly closed his council tax account by transferring liability to someone who does not live at the property, who had falsely told the Council they lived there.
• Failed to refer suspected fraud to its fraud department or co-operate with the police.
• Shared his personal data with his landlord without his consent.
• Took too long to respond to his concerns and missed its own deadlines.
• Failed to provide information about council tax exemptions.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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 Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council followed its normal process when it changed the council tax liability and sent Mr X a closing bill. There was no need for the Council to seek more evidence from the person claiming to be the new occupant of Mr X’s address. Mr X says the same person had tried to do something similar before. I have seen no evidence the Council had a record of any earlier attempt that should have alerted the Council to the possibility of suspicious activity targeting Mr X. The Council told Mr X about the change, he queried and the Council reinstated his account. There is not enough evidence of fault.
8. Mr X believes the Council did not help the police investigate the alleged fraud. It is for the police, not the Ombudsman, to decide whether any person or organisation is failing to cooperate and, if so, to decide what to do about it.
9. It is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider the alleged data-handling breach. The Information Commissioner has the expertise to decide such matters and the power to make a binding decision. I see no reason Mr X should not take this matter to the Information Commissioner.
10. Mr X complains the Council took too long to respond to his concerns. The Council apologised and provided a full response. We will not investigate because we could not add anything significant to what the Council has already said. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
11. Mr X says the Council did not respond to repeated requests for information about council tax exemptions. I have seen no evidence Mr X raised this with the Council in his complaint correspondence. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to respond. I see no reason to make an exception here. Mr X should raise this with the Council first.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council changing the account. It is for the police to decide whether the Council has cooperated with a police investigation. The point about data handling is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner to consider. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation. Mr X should complain to the Council first about the alleged failure to provide information about council tax exemptions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman