Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council obtained information from the council tax team without the complainant’s consent and breached the allotment policy. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant could contact the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the allotment team contacted the council tax team without his consent. He says the Council breached the allotment policy and did not consider his circumstances. Mr X wants compensation.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 (ICO) 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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. People can have an allotment if they live within the Council area. The allotment terms and conditions say the plot holder must tell the Council of any change of address; failure to do so might result in the Council ending the allotment tenancy.
6. In late 2023 the Council became aware of information which suggested Mr X may have moved and his new address might be outside the borough. Mr X did not provide the information the Council needed so the allotment team asked the council tax team if Mr X was still registered at the same address; the council tax team said he did not.
7. The Council explained the allotment rules to Mr X and said he needed to provide evidence he still lived in the council area. It allowed extra time for Mr X to provide the evidence. The Council explained that checking with the council tax team was reasonable because it needed to check if Mr X still qualified for an allotment. The Council checked with its data protection officer who said there had not been a data breach. The Council said Mr X had not been treated differently or suffered discrimination as he had alleged, because all residents must follow the same rules if they have an allotment.
8. The Council ended Mr X’s allotment tenancy a few weeks ago.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has no record Mr X notified the allotment team that he had changed address and the emails from Mr X to the Council confirm this. The Council did not receive proof of address so, despite waiting about six months, it terminated the tenancy. The Council’s actions are consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation or ask for compensation.
10. The Council explained why it had a legitimate reason to ask the council tax team about Mr X’s address. It explained why there had not been a data breach. Mr X can contact the ICO if he remains of the view the Council should not have obtained information from the council tax department. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to do this because the ICO is the appropriate organisation to consider complaints about data breaches and the use of personal data.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X can contact the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman