Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about council tax liability, including the information the Council relied upon to decide liability. X has already used an alternative legal remedy, and the law does not allow us to consider anything related to that appeal. Nor will we investigate a complaint about X’s information rights. The Information Commissioner is better placed to look at a complaint about those matters.

The complaint

1. X complained the Council was at fault because it would not provide them with detailed information on how it decided who was liable for council tax at a property. Additionally, X disputes the information the Council did provide about this matter.
2. X was also unhappy the Council disclosed their personal information, to a third party and said it has not complied with a subject access request.
3. X said the Council’s actions in this matter has caused them frustration and wants it to disclose the information it has and apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
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. (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 the complainant and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. X was unhappy about the way the Council managed and decided on liability for council tax, at a property. They said it did not provide sufficient information about how it decided these matters, and disputed some of its findings, on information it did disclose. X told us they are pursuing a claim about liability and discounts, with the Valuation Tribunal.
9. Because of the law I have referred to at paragraph three, we cannot investigate most of X’s complaint. This includes the information the Council used to decide on liability and any dispute about the accuracy of this information. These are matters which will be considered during X’s appeal and we cannot trespass on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
10. The only matter, which I see as being separable from X’s appeal to the Tribunal, related to X’s complaint at paragraph two. The Information Commissioner (IC) has extensive powers to regulate how a public authority manages its data and can monitor compliance with information rights. I will not investigate this aspect of X’s complaint because the IC is better placed to consider their complaint here.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate X’s complaint because they have already used an alternative legal remedy that will address most of their complaint and there is another body better placed to look at the other part of their complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman