Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council sharing someone else’s personal data when it was chasing council tax arrears. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council wrongly shared his personal data and chased him for council tax arrears when it incorrectly linked his name with someone else’s council tax account. Mr X also complains the Council chased him for Council tax arrears on his own account when he was not liable.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
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 Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council accept there was a data breach when it incorrectly linked Mr Y to someone else’s council tax account. However, this was a data breach of someone else’s data, not Mr Y’s. The Council say it reported this data breach internally and corrected its records.
8. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data and respond to requests for information. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. In the absence of a wider complaint within our remit, there is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.
9. The Council also say it previously shared Mr Y’s data with enforcement agents because there were arrears showing on Mr Y’s council tax account. After Mr Y provided evidence he was not liable for the arrears, the Council issued him a refund. There is insufficient remaining injustice arising from the enforcement because Mr Y has been issued a refund.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider and decide the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman