Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council
• set up a duplicate council tax account for him in error without checking information. It sent a summons with no warning in October 2024.
• said errors like this happened all the time when he called to question the summons. The Council stated it was sometimes not possible to keep accurate records when agents and landlords provided incorrect information. Mr X says this shows systemic faults by the Council and it breached data protection laws in holding inaccurate information.
• refused to respond to his complaint because it incorrectly stated said he had made an insurance claim.
2. Mr X says this caused him significant distress as he is vulnerable. He asked the Council to pay him £8500 for the distress and impact on him.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X received a summons in late October 2024. He called the Council in early November. The Council confirmed the same day by email it had withdrawn the summons and deleted the account. It said it made every effort to keep records accurate, but this was sometimes not possible when third parties gave incorrect information. It apologised for the distress caused.
7. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. The Council opened an account based on third party information. This was not correct, but it corrected it as soon as it was alerted to the duplicate account by Mr X. Councils process thousands of pieces of information every day and cannot ensure that every one they receive and process is accurate.
8. Even if we were to consider there was fault by the Council, it corrected the error promptly and apologised for the distress caused. We would not seek a further remedy as the injustice is not significant enough to warrant it. And we cannot achieve the financial remedy Mr X has requested.
9. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer to the Information Commissioner about the data protection matters he has raised. That is the body which is better placed to consider complaints about data recording and processing.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation. The injustice due to the claimed fault is in any case not significant enough for investigation and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer the data protection matters to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman