Summary: Miss X complains the Council incorrectly shared details of her vehicle following an incident she was not involved in. We found the Council at fault for sharing incorrect information. This error caused a financial impact, stress and inconvenience for Miss X. Her insurer has refunded the increase in her insurance premium, so Miss X has suffered no financial loss. The Council has apologised for the error, and this is a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly told her insurance company that her car had been involved in an incident.
2. She says this had a financial impact on her, causing an increase in her insurance premium and the loss of her no claims bonus. It also caused her stress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

What I have not investigated

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The matters involved in this complaint have been ongoing since October 2022. However, Miss X says she was not aware of the impact of the matter until June 2024, when she renewed her insurance policy, as this is when the financial impact occurred. Therefore, I have used discretion to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What happened

9. In October 2022, the Council was notified of an incident whereby a car had caused damage to a road surface. It received a police reference number and, using its access to the police database, checked the record for further information. The record showed Miss X’s car registration number.
10. Believing Miss X’s car to be the one involved, the Council passed the registration number to its insurer to begin a claims process. Miss X was not involved in the incident, and her car had not caused the damage.
11. Miss X’s insurance provider contacted her about the claim in April 2023. She disputed it, stating her car was not involved. The insurer arranged an inspection of her car, which confirmed there was no damage. Miss X was told the claim against her would be closed.
12. There is no evidence of any impact on Miss X’s insurance when she renewed her policy in 2023.
13. When Miss X renewed her insurance in June 2024, she found a cheaper quote by a different provider and moved her policy to them. She did not disclose the previous claim, as she believed it was closed.
14. The new insurance provider contacted Miss X and said it had identified an open claim against her. It said she needed to include the claim until it had been closed. This caused an increase to her premium.
15. In August, a letter was uploaded to Miss X’s insurance portal confirming a full refund of the premium increase. It is not clear what led to this refund as no associated communication was provided. Miss X could not recall the refund.
16. Later that month, Miss X submitted a complaint to the police for incorrectly providing the Council with her details which led to the Council claiming against her.
17. In October, she chased the matter after receiving no response. Later that month, Miss X decided to sell her car because she was worried the issue would continue. When she transferred her existing policy to her new car, she had to pay a fee.
18. The police allocated her complaint to an investigator in March 2025. As part of their investigation, the police contacted the Council to identify who had shared the car information. The Council confirmed a highways officer had shared the registration details taken from the police database.
19. The police told Miss X of this and closed its investigation.
20. In May 2025, Miss X complained to the Council. The Council accepted that it had incorrectly shared her information with its insurer. It told Miss X it had now contacted her insurer and confirmed the claim should be withdrawn at no cost to her.
21. Miss X remained dissatisfied, as she said the Council’s error had caused her financial loss.
22. The Council told Miss X it had not received any payment in relation to this claim, so she would need to address her insurance provider directly for any refund. It said this was its final response and signposted her to the Ombudsman.
23. In June, Miss X bought her complaint to us.
24. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained it is standard process to share car details with its insurer when responding to police notifications.

My findings

25. The Council is permitted to access the police database and did so appropriately. It acted in good faith when it shared the car details with its insurer, as this is its standard process. However, the information it shared was wrong. Sharing inaccurate information is fault. The incorrect information led directly to an increase in Miss X’s insurance premium. She also experienced worry and stress after being linked to an incident she was not involved in, as well as from the time she spent communicating with the insurer to resolve it. These impacts are an injustice arising from the Council’s fault.
26. When the Council were contacted by the police, and made aware the information it shared was incorrect, it withdrew the claim. The Council confirmed this in its complaint response, acknowledged the error and apologised. It told Miss X that any financial impact on her policy would need to be addressed directly with her insurer.
27. Miss X provided documents showing that, in August 2024, her insurer refunded her in full for the increased premium. The document also confirmed her five-year no-claims bonus was unaffected. At this point, the direct financial injustice caused by the Council’s error had been remedied, as her personal losses were fully reimbursed.
28. The cost Miss X incurred when transferring her insurance policy to a new car arose from her decision to change cars. This is a standard cost associated with changing an insurance policy, and not an impact caused by the Council’s fault.

Impact after the insurance refund

29. In August 2024, after receiving her insurance refund, Miss X made a complaint to the police. The police investigation confirmed the Council had provided the details, and Miss X subsequently complained to the Council.
30. The financial loss had already been remedied by the refund in August 2024.
31. When Miss X submitted her complaint to the Council in May 2025, they promptly investigated and apologised for the error. I find this an appropriate remedy to the outstanding injustice so do not suggest any further remedy.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already taken action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman