Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to costs he incurs as a freeholder liable for Council service charges. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to be able to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and if Mr X wants to challenge the terms of his contract with the Council he can take legal action through the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has been consistently overcharging him as a freeholder for repairs which are not related to his property and that it has refused to provide a breakdown of expenses for the last 10 years.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information Mr X provided, including the Council’s responses to his complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X is the owner of a freehold property who, under his contract with the Council, must pay service charges and certain repair costs.
8. In early 2019, after a complaint Mr X submitted, the Council confirmed it had been wrong to send him a Section 20 chargeability notice which had indicated it intended to carry out roof work which he would have to pay towards. It confirmed there would be no charge and apologised for its error.
9. In October 2019 Mr X contacted the Council again as it had included the same roof works in a bill it had sent to him. He also queried his liability to pay towards heating repairs and asked whether he could be given credit for the resale of expensive equipment he had previously paid towards some years earlier.
10. Mr X made a formal complaint about these matters. The Council addressed his concerns through its complaints procedure and apologised that he had incorrectly been billed for roof works when he was not liable for them. It explained why, under the terms of the contract he had signed, he was liable for the heating system works, including those for new radiators in other properties. It also explained that the expensive equipment referred to by Mr X had been kept as stock by the Council and why, in such cases, the Council did not offer refunds for freeholders/leaseholders.
11. In response to Mr X’s request for a refund of any incorrectly made block charges in the last 10 years, the Council told him it had checked the previous three years but found no block charges had been made. It asked him for specific details because of the resource implications in carrying out such time-consuming checks.
12. Mr X asked the Council to provide a detailed breakdown of service charges for the last 10 years and says he has not received a response.

Assessment

13. While I understand Mr X’s frustration at being billed for roof works for which he was not liable, the Council apologised for its error and credited his account to address this.
14. If Mr X wants to challenge the terms of his contract with the Council, it is open to him to take legal action through the courts. As he has this alternative remedy available to him which we would reasonably expect him to make use of this matter falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.
15. The Council has explained to Mr X why it does not make refunds in situations such as that involving the equipment Mr X contributed to the purchase of some years ago. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 4 applies to this issue and I see no grounds which warrant exercising discretion to look at it now.
16. Mr X says we should investigate his complaint, but we do not investigate every complaint we receive. We are a publicly funded body with an obligation to use the funds allocated to us in an efficient, effective and economic manner.
17. Reference made to the court remedy available to him relates to any dispute he has about the interpretation of his contract with the Council. It does not refer to his attempts to obtain information from the Council. If Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s response to such requests, it is open to him to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. This Office considers complaints about freedom of information and data protection and we generally consider it reasonable to expect a complainant to refer such matters to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to be able to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and if Mr X wants to challenge the terms of his contract with the Council he can take legal action through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman