Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider data breach concerns.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council wrongly made her husband jointly liable for council tax for a property she owns. This caused inconvenience and stress. She says the Council breached data protection rules giving information to her husband. She also complains about the Council’s complaint handling.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

3. 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).
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not investigating the substantive issue.

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. Ms X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
8. The Council replied explaining why it had made Ms X’s husband liable for council tax. It apologised for the error and said it had corrected the account liability as soon as Ms X called the Council. It noted Mr X’s had cancelled the direct debit it had set up. The Council said it corrected the account four weeks before the direct debit was due to be taken.
9. We will not investigate this complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. The Council corrected the account promptly. It apologised and explained the reason for its actions.
10. The Council delayed responding to complaints. However, we will not investigate this as we are not investigating the substantive complaint.
11. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to refer to the ICO regarding her concerns about a data breach because it is better placed to consider this.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman