The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints about council tax support and his request for the Council to delete a case note. This is because it was reasonable for him to have used his right of appeal to challenge the Council’s decision on his council tax support award. In addition, the ICO is the more appropriate body to deal with his complaint about the Council’s refusal to delete a case note, and the alleged fault would not have caused any significant injustice.
The complaint
Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with his complaints about council tax support and his request for the Council to delete a case note.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) 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 an investigation if we decide: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about his council tax support (CTS) in 2021. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage 2 and awarded Mr X backdated CTS. The Council also provided Mr X with a detailed breakdown of how it had calculated his CTS awards.
In the letter detailing the breakdown of Mr X’s CTS awards, the Council told Mr X about his right of appeal. If Mr X was not happy with how the Council had calculated his CTS awards, it was reasonable for him to have used his right of appeal. Therefore, I will not exercise discretion to consider this element of Mr X’s complaint.
Mr X also complained the Council would not delete a case note related to a telephone call he had with the Council. The Council has explained its reasons for why it will not delete the case note. If Mr X disagrees with the Council, he can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes, including ‘right to rectification’ disputes. Therefore, The ICO are better placed than us to consider if the Council should delete its case note about Mr X.
Finally, Mr X complained the Council had issued a liability order. The Council confirmed it issued the summons because Mr X’s council tax payment was late. The Council clarified that when Mr X made the required payment to bring his account up to date, it withdrew the summons.
I will not investigate this complaint because the alleged fault would not have caused any significant injustice. This is because the Council was entitled to collect the outstanding council tax balance from Mr X, and it withdrew the summons immediately once Mr X paid off the balance.
We do not investigate complaints about the Council’s complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matters that led to the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to have used his right of appeal to challenge the Council’s decision on his council tax support award. In addition, the ICO is the more appropriate body to deal with his complaints about the Council’s refusal to delete a case note, and the alleged fault would not have caused any significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman