Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about disputed leasehold charges as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to take his case to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly issued his business an invoice for leasehold service charges. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint about this and about its data handling. Mr X complains he has been put to time and effort to try to resolve the matter and has been caused frustration.

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 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 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)
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 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is England’s independent body which resolves leasehold disputes. As this is the prescribed body in law to deal with such matters and as we are not an alternative appeal body or empowered to make the determinations the Tribunal can, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to ask the Tribunal to decide his case. We will not investigate, therefore.
9. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent regulator in respect of data protection concerns. It is best placed to assess Mr X’s concerns in this regard and to decide whether the Council needs to take corrective action. We will not therefore investigate.
10. I recognise Mr X remains unhappy about the Council’s handling of his complaint, but I do not consider he is caused a level of injustice from this, in isolation, to warrant our further involvement. We have limited resources and must direct them to the most serious cases.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to refer his case to the Tribunal. Any remaining data protection concern is best dealt with by the ICO, and we will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling as a separate matter as any injustice arising from this is not sufficient to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman