Summary: We have discontinued the investigation into Mr X’s complaint about unnecessary enforcement action. Enforcement action was a result of the Council pursuing a school attendance issue in court. We could not add anything to the investigation already carried out by the Council, nor could we achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council took enforcement action, including instructing bailiffs, against his family, based on false information. Action taken by the Council was against another individual and not Mr X.
2. Mr X complained about the Council’s inadequate action following learning about the data breach. He said the incident caused him and his wife great distress.
3. Mr X also complained about the Councils poor complaint handling and communication.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
5. 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,
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, and
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information and data protection. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). The ICO also have powers to order rectification of records, that we do not. Where we receive complaints about data protection, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner rather than to the Ombudsman.
7. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the complaint and information provided by Mr X and the Council.
9. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
10. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered all comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

11. A local school gave the Council false information about who lived at Mr X’s address. Because of this, enforcement agents, instructed by a court, visited Mr X’s home address.
12. Mr X and his family spoke to the local school and the enforcement agents to correct the mistake. Mr X also made a formal complaint to the Council.
13. Within two weeks the Council made its stage one response to Mr X.
14. The Council said it contacted the school and the court urgently upon learning about the error. It corrected the error. It said all action associated with Mr X and his address had been withdrawn. It apologised to Mr X.
15. Mr X was unhappy with the response and wrote again to the Council.
16. The Council offered Mr X a symbolic payment to recognise the distress caused by the error.
17. Mr X declined and asked the Council to increase its offer or progress the complaint to stage two of its complaint procedure.
18. In its stage two response to Mr X the Council said it acted as soon as it found out about the issue. It said it was not aware of the error until Mr X made his complaint. It signposted Mr X to the school’s complaint procedure. It, again, offered Mr X a symbolic payment.
19. Mr X remained unhappy with the Councils response. He wrote again to the Council. He said he wanted the Council to investigate the data breach and asked about its debt recovery procedures.
20. The Council responded to Mr X’s questions, but its position stayed the same. The complaint process ended.

My findings

21. The Council acknowledged what had gone wrong. It answered all of Mr X’s questions and apologised to Mr X. The Council offered Mr X a symbolic payment to recognise the distress caused when enforcement agents visited his home.
22. We could not add anything to the investigation already completed by the Council.
23. The payments we recommend are of a symbolic nature. Should Mr X be seeking compensation he may wish to pursue this through the courts.
24. The symbolic payment offered to Mr X by the Council, is in line with our Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
25. The ICO is better placed to consider the data protection part of Mr X’s complaint.
26. The Council referred to Mr X incorrectly part way through its complaint procedure. Considering the nature of the complaint, this was particularly insensitive. The Council apologised for this.
27. I cannot find fault with the overall complaint handling. The Council responded quickly to Mr X’s complaint and provided an adequate response at every stage of the complaint process. The Council appropriately referred Mr X to the Ombudsman.
28. If, on reflection, Mr X now wishes to accept the payment offered to him by the Council he should contact the Council directly to discuss this.

Back to top

Final decision

29. We have discontinued this investigation. We could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman