Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a bill the Council sent to the complainant in 2021 for work carried out ten years ago at an address where she had not lived for more than ten years. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms B, complained that the Council sent her a bill in 2021 for work carried out ten years ago at an address where she had not lived for more than ten years.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Ms B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms B told us the letter the Council sent to her in 2021 demanding payment was also copied to the address where she had not lived for more than ten years. She complained about the length of time the Council had taken to raise the matter and the loss of opportunity to appeal.
8. When responding to Ms B’s complaint the Council said the debt had become apparent after an audit of its records. It said its records showed it had sent a letter requiring works to be done to Ms B’s current address as well as the address where it believed she was living. It sent a letter telling her the work had been done in default to the address where it believed she had been living. The Council told Ms B this letter had been returned in September 2011 marked “addressee gone away”. Ms B said, after that, the Council continued to send letters to an address when it knew she was not living there. The Council shared the cost of the work to a private sewer between the property owners. It then registered Ms B’s share of the debt as a land charge.
9. The Council has said it did not have confirmation of Ms B’s correct address until recently. It was not fault for the Council to send letters in 2010 and 2011 to the last address where it understood Ms B was living. This is not something we could now investigate effectively after such a lapse of time. So it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation. But, in any case, the Council has a duty to protect public funds so we would not criticise it for seeking payment of a debt it believes Ms B owes. We would, however, expect the Council to be willing to discuss repayment terms with her. The Council’s final response to Ms B’s complaint showed it is willing to do this.
10. Ms B said the Council has not been willing to address her complaint of a breach of data protection law. We would expect her to refer this issue to the Information Commissioner’s Office. That is because this is the body with specific powers and expertise to consider data protection issues.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman