Bristol City Council (25 016 336)

Category : Housing > Council house sales and leaseholders

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 04 Mar 2026

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about leaseholder service charges and costs. Ms X has already used an appeal right about part of her concerns and consequently the law does not allow us to investigate. And of the other parts, she can raise any new concerns to the Tribunal about matters relating to costs, when the Council decides. Finally, we will not consider the part of Ms X’s complaint about how much the Council offered to buy her property back from her, because Ms X’s injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains about the services charges the Council applies to her flat, for which she is the leaseholder. And she is concerned about how it will decide on contributions leaseholders will have to pay, toward planned works.
  2. Ms X also complains the Council offered to buy her home back from her at a reduced cost due to planned major works. Ms X wants the Council to be transparent about leaseholder charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
  3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
  4. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Ms X.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Ms X approached the first-tier tribunal in 2025 regarding the Council’s service charges on her flat. As the tribunal heard and decided on Ms X’s case, the restriction in paragraph four applies and we cannot consider this element of this complaint.
  2. Nor will we consider the part of the complaint about pending costs to Ms X as a leaseholder, for planned works. The Council has approached the tribunal to make a determination on how much leaseholders will pay for the planned major works and Ms X would be able to make any representations she has about that to the Tribunal when the Council makes a decision. Given we could not intervene in this in any case, it is reasonable to expect her to use this alternative legal remedy. So, we will not consider this element of the complaint.
  3. Lastly, we will not investigate the Council’s offer on her property. If Ms X is unhappy with the offer from the Council to buy her home back, she can list her home on the open market where she may receive better offers. So, the injustice suffered by the Ms X, because of the Council’s decision is not significant enough to warrant investigation. In any case we could not direct the Council to make an alternative offer.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because Ms X has already used her tribunal rights, the tribunal is expected to make a determination on the cost of planned major works, and the remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings