Council house sales and leaseholders


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Wolverhampton City Council (18 009 996)

    Statement Upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 06-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to provide an information document about Right to Buy when Miss X started her tenancy. This did not cause Miss X any significant injustice because the Council did tell her that she might not receive a discount if she applied to buy her home.

  • Dacorum Borough Council (18 008 503)

    Statement Not upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 07-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained that after a data breach, the Council refused to waive the repayable discount on her property which she bought under the Right to Buy scheme. There was no fault in the Council's actions.

  • Exeter City Council (18 006 822)

    Statement Upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 18-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council unreasonably delayed the completion of their 'right to buy' application. There was fault by the Council that warrants a remedy to reflect the additional time and trouble Mr and Mrs X spent pursuing the application and their complaints.

  • Manchester City Council (18 009 719)

    Statement Not upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 20-Nov-2018

    Summary: Ms X complains about the purchase price offered by the Council under the Right to Buy. The Ombudsman has discontinued our investigation because there is no fault causing injustice to Ms X and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

  • London Borough Of Brent (18 007 388)

    Statement Not upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 15-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr W complains the Council did not tell him about a shared equity scheme. Mr W says as a result he was not able to apply for the scheme and missed out on the opportunity. Mr W also complains the Council has not offered him a replacement property. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault with the Council's actions.

  • Portsmouth City Council (17 020 240)

    Statement Upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 19-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council would not start his second Right to Buy process until he had sent them details of his finances. There was fault by the Council in how it dealt with Mr X's first Right to Buy application. It was fault that the Council did not reply to Mr X's queries about the maintenance and service charges for the property. That fault caused Mr X an injustice requiring a remedy. Mr X did not submit a valid second Right to Buy application. It was not fault by the Council which stopped that application progressing.

  • London Borough of Newham (17 011 864)

    Statement Upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 26-Sep-2018

    Summary: The Council misled an applicant for a shared ownership property about how it would set the price. It failed to tell the applicant it had changed the garden and refused a new valuation. The Council withdrew from the sale without good reason. It then did not deal with a complaint about this but sent it to external litigation solicitors and tried to hold the applicant responsible for the costs of this. The Council caused the applicant injustice because he lost the property and had over £3,000 in abortive costs. The Council also caused the complaint significant time, trouble, distress and outrage. The Council will pay the complainant £6,000 and improve how it administers its shared ownership scheme.

  • Sheffield City Council (17 016 644)

    Statement Not upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 29-Aug-2018

    Summary: Mr X has complained the Council wrongly led him to believe he could purchase his home under the Right to Buy scheme. He is also unhappy with how the Monitoring Officer dealt with his complaint about a local councillor. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Newham (17 011 200)

    Statement Upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 29-Aug-2018

    Summary: The Council was at fault when it withdrew from the sale of a property under its Newshare scheme without a good reason to do so. This has caused Mr X quantifiable loss, distress and time and trouble. The Council has made an offer to re-sell Mr X the property and pay him £4220 which is a suitable remedy.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (17 013 918)

    Statement Not upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 17-May-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr D's complaint about the Council's failure to properly calculate a rent rebate following a 25-month delay in completing the purchase of his house under the right to buy scheme.

;