Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint that there was fault in the way the Council dealt with his application for an extension to a lease. This is because he has appealed to the First Tier Tribunal and started court action.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained that there was fault in the way the Council dealt with his application for an extension to a lease. Mr B told us this had a significant emotional and financial impact on him and he was unable to sell the property.

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 can appeal to a tribunal could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal or to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a) and section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered the information Mr B has provided and the Council’s responses to his complaint. I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr B originally applied to extend the lease in July 2018. The Council owns the freehold. Mr B says he tried to communicate his natural concerns to the Council but it failed to address them. Part of the remedy he is seeking from the Council is for it to provide some sort of acknowledgement of the financial and emotional impact the way it dealt with the matter has had on his life. He says he wants the Council to make an effort to ease this burden.
8. In November 2018 the Council sent a valuation report to Mr B’s solicitor. Mr B took issue with it. This affected progress. Mr B complained to the Council about the length of time the matter was taking and the premium the Council was seeking.
9. The Council replied to Mr B’s complaint in April 2019. In its response it said its officers had advised Mr B several times that he could apply to the First Tier Tribunal to determine the value issue. As that was a major issue affecting progress, it was reasonable to expect Mr B to apply to the Tribunal.
10. Mr B says, after he received the Council’s response to his complaint, he decided not to complain to us at this point because he felt there may be quicker processes for him to follow to achieve the lease extension. He then applied to the First Tier Tribunal.
11. Mr B told us he also attempted to communicate further with the Council. In May 2019 a senior council officer replied to him. The officer said she viewed his previous and continued correspondence as vexatious and unreasonably persistent. She said, if he wanted to contact the Council in the future, he must only do so by email to her until she confirmed otherwise. The officer confirmed the Council had received a copy of Mr B’s county court claim.
12. Mr B told us he sought confirmation of the premium first and confirmation of the lease terms. But he says the Council failed to respond to him about the lease terms so he was not able to appoint a solicitor. The Council has told us the lease was eventually extended in November 2019 after Mr B had re-appointed his solicitor.
13. We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint because he has appealed to the First Tier Tribunal and started court action. That is the case even if the action Mr B has taken has not provided him with a remedy for all of the injustice he has claimed as a result of the way the Council has dealt with the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr B has appealed to the First Tier Tribunal and started court action.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman