Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a breach of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) This is because the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains on behalf of her son, Mr Y. She says the Council issued several council tax bills to Mr Y using incorrect names, including a childhood name he did not know about. She states the Council should not have retained this outdated personal data for over a decade and believes this breached General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and data retention rules. Miss X says the errors caused significant distress to her autistic son, and she seeks £5,000 in compensation.

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 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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), as amended, section 34(B))

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council apologised for failing to update Mr Y’s name in its records and said human error caused the mistake. The Council accepted it missed opportunities to correct Mr Y’s name and said it has reminded staff to maintain accurate data.
8. The Council confirmed it has now updated Mr Y’s name correctly and will not send any further letters with the wrong name. Although it expressed sympathy for the distress caused, the Council said it cannot take any further action and does not consider compensation appropriate.
9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council breached GDPR in relation to how it handled Mr Y’s personal data. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is the regulator for information rights, and it is best placed to consider whether the Council has retained Mr Y’s personal data in line with its data obligations.
10. Furthermore, we cannot achieve the outcome sought in terms of compensation for Miss X. Only the courts can adequately assess a claim for compensation. 

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint as concerns about GDPR should be raised with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) furthermore we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks, as only the courts can adequately assess a claim for compensation. 

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman