Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a liability change. This is because the Council has taken suitable action remedy the injustice caused by its fault. There is no significant remaining injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to check Land Registry records regarding ownership of his property. It ignored information he gave on two forms showing he was the joint owner. It sent a bill to the previous owner in error to her former address, breaching data protection rules. When he called the Council to tell it about the mistake, the officer was dismissive and said he should contact the Land Registry. He said the Council took four months to correct the bill.

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 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, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).
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. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
7. The Council replied that it had not received notification from the former owner or the new owner of the change in ownership. It was not required to check Land Registry records on a change in tenancy. However, it accepted that it should have noted the new landlord details Mr X provided in April 2025. It apologised for this. The Council did not accept there was a data breach. The Council said it did not have a record of the call that Mr X stated an officer dismissed his concerns and advised him to contact the land registry. In view of the delays in correcting liability the Council offered Mr X £50.
8. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council regarding Mr X’s complaint that it should have checked Land Registry. Councils are not required to do this unless alerted to a change, or there is some doubt about ownership. The Council has accepted it should have revised liability sooner than it did. It offered a small financial remedy. The Council has taken suitable action and there is no remaining significant injustice here.
9. It is reasonable to expect Mr X or the former owner to refer to the ICO about concerns regarding potential data breaches.
10. I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation into the call in which Mr X says the Council gave incorrect advice. The injustice from this is also not significant enough to warrant our involvement.
11. We do not investigate complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice. There is no significant remaining injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman