Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council wrongly pursued a former tenant for council tax. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to notify him about council tax he owed on his property. He said instead, it wrongly pursued his former tenant, Mr Y for the council tax. He said when the Council identified that he was the property owner it demanded payment for the council tax without accepting its error.
2. Mr X believes the Council wrongly got a Liability Order against Mr Y. He wants the Council to provide a copy of the Liability Order and any other of its records. He wants the Council to waive the council tax until the matter is resolved and pay him compensation for the distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In its complaint response the Council explained that when Mr Y moved into the property, it incorrectly registered him as the owner. It said after Mr Y moved out; he remained listed as the owner on its records. It said this error resulted in it pursuing Mr Y for the council tax instead of Mr X. It confirmed it had since updated its records and apologised for this error.
8. The Council said it would not provide Mr X a copy of the Liability Order or any of its records relating to Mr Y. It explained that was because this contained Mr Y’s personal information. It also said it would not waive the council tax, as despite the error, Mr X was still liable for it. It said Mr X could repay this in instalments.
9. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate for the following reasons.
• The Council has explained how the error occurred, corrected its records and apologised for its mistake. The apology is an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused. It has also said Mr X can pay of the council tax debt off in instalments. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
• If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision not to disclose its records about the Liability Order, that would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is responsible for investigating complaints about how organisation handle personal data.
• If Mr Y is unhappy the Council wrongly pursued him for council tax, he would need to make a complaint in his own right to the council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman