Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a house in multiple occupancy (HMO) application he made to the Council. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr B to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. For the remaining complaints, the matters have been considered during tribunal proceedings and it is reasonable for Mr B to raise further matters he complains of in his defence in the ongoing proceedings.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council acted in a biased way when his former tenant applied for a rent repayment order (RRO). He says the Council released his personal information to third parties without his consent and it failed to ensure it had secure systems which led to a widespread loss of data. Mr B says the Council made false statements against him which were not legally correct. Mr B says he has suffered financial loss and a damaged business reputation because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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)
5. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from both Mr B and the Council. I shared a draft version of this decision with Mr B and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr B is a resident landlord. He says he applied for a HMO application in October 2017. The Council disputes this and says it can only find an application from Mr B in May 2018.
8. Mr B’s former tenant applied to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a RRO. The judge initially dismissed the case. Mr B’s former tenant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). The judge remitted the matter to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a re-hearing after new evidence was produced on appeal.
9. Mr B says the Council released his personal data to third parties without his consent and changed it systems which led to widespread data loss and confusion. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent authority that deals with complaints about how public authorities handle data. It is reasonable to expect Mr B to complain to the ICO. The ICO is better placed to decide if the Council has failed to comply with its duties under data protection legislation. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use.
10. Mr B says the Council made false and misleading statements against him which were not legally correct. Mr B says the Council showed bias toward his former tenant because it provided evidence in support of his former tenant’s application for a RRO. These are matters which would have been considered during tribunal proceedings. If Mr B feels the Council has defamed him and has provided biased and untrue information, he can bring these matters to the attention of the judge in the ongoing proceedings. The Tribunal, rather than the Ombudsman, is better placed to consider these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr B to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. For the remaining complaints, the matters have been considered in tribunal proceedings and it is reasonable for Mr B to raise further matters he complains of in his defence in the ongoing proceedings.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman