The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council removing a council tax single person discount. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for this. There is also not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. Matters regarding alleged data misuse are for the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council incorrectly removed his single person discount in 2024 based on unreliable information it received from another department which it should have verified. He says this breached data protection rules.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are 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).
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 the complainant. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council confirmed it had received information that another person had moved into Mr X’s home. It said it had removed Mr X’s single person discount, and it sent a bill to him in December 2024 stating this.
The Council said it reinstated the discount in February 2026 following Mr X’s contact in early 2026. It refunded the credit as Mr X had paid. It confirmed that it had not taken recovery action.
We will not investigate this complaint because it is late. Mr X was aware the Council had removed the single person discount in December 2024 as it sent him a bill. He complained to the Ombudsman in February 2026, more than 12 months later. There is no good reason for the delay in complaining to the Ombudsman, and I do not consider we should use our discretion to investigate.
Even if we were to exercise our discretion to investigate, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. The Council is entitled to share information which may affect a council tax discount. It did not need to make further checks unless there was doubt regarding the information. The Council revised Mr X’s discount when he raised the matter.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council misused data because this is a matter that the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. Complaints regarding alleged data misuse are for the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman