The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handles data and its requirement that people must provide a phone number to complete some council tax forms. This is because the complainant is raising issues that should be considered by the Information Commissioner and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council is breaching the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by making people provide a phone number to submit an on-line council tax form. Mr X also complains that a third party has access to his data and says the Council did not treat his complaint as a complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or 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), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council asked Mr X to fill in an on-line form to renew his council tax single person discount (SPD). Mr X could not submit the form because he did not want to provide his phone number which is a requirement.
Mr X complained about the need to provide a number which he says he is an excessive requirement and one that breaches data protection law. He said he had complained about the same issue before and the Council removed the requirement. Mr X also complained about a third party who has access to his data and about the Council not treating his complaint as a complaint.
The Council provided an initial response and then provided complaint replies. It explained the software provider for the council tax system requires the provision of a phone number and, while the Council had checked, The Council cannot change this requirement. It had previously removed it but that was when a different system was in place. The Council explained why having a phone number is helpful and it does not consider the requirement to be excessive.
The Council confirmed it had renewed Mr X’s SPD and explained there is a number people can call if they need help with the on-line form. The Council said officers use their judgment to determine if someone is making an enquiry or request, or a complaint. The Council explained the role of the third party in providing software services and says it and the third party store data securely.
I will not investigate this complaint because Mr X can complain to the ICO if he thinks the Council is not complying with the GDPR. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the ICO because it is the appropriate body to deal with complaints about GDPR.
I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. While Mr X faced some additional hurdles because he did not want to provide his phone number, his SPD has been renewed. And, while I acknowledge Mr X may have felt frustrated that his initial contact was not immediately treated as complaint, the Council did subsequently provide three complaint replies. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with the way the Council handled the SPD, and his complaint, but there is nothing to suggest he has been caused an injustice requiring an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X can complain to the ICO and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman