Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a data breach and the Council sending an Enforcement Agent to his property. Another body is better placed to investigate the first part of his complaint, and a further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile for the second part of his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly sent an Enforcement Agent to his property to enforce council tax liability for the previous tenant. He said the Council knew the previous tenant had moved out.
2. Mr X also complains the Council committed a data breach because it gave his details to the Enforcement Agent and therefore wrongly identified him as the debtor.
3. Mr X said he was distressed when he saw the enforcement notice. He said the enforcement agent asked him to prove he was not the person named on the enforcement notice.
4. He would like an apology, a payment of compensation and the Council to report itself to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). He said the Council should review its complaint handling, debt collection and data protection procedures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. 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

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X said the Council committed a data breach. We will not investigate this part of his complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to go to the ICO. The ICO is better placed than us to investigate and decide complaints about data protection. We have seen no good reason why we should investigate instead.
10. We will not investigate the other parts of Mr X’s complaint because a further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile.
11. The Council apologised for the Enforcement Agent’s visit and explained why it sent liability notices meant for the previous tenant to Mr X’s address.
12. The Council also explained that when it refers cases to enforcement agents, it expects the enforcement agents to carry out extra checks before starting enforcement action.
13. The Council said this process was not followed in Mr X’s case because there was an error. It said it has corrected the error to make sure it does not happen again.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate the first part of Mr X’s complaint because the ICO is better placed than us to investigate. We will not investigate the other parts of his complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman