Council house sales and leaseholders


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Canterbury City Council (17 010 755)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council house sales and leaseholders 10-Nov-2017

    Summary: Miss X complained about the Council delaying her Right to Buy application. She also says the initial valuation failed to include the garden. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It was reasonable for Miss X to use the statutory procedure for delay in Right to Buy applications.

  • Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (17 002 629)

    Statement Upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 10-Nov-2017

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed during the Right to Buy process causing him avoidable expense. The Ombudsman finds evidence of fault in how the Council handled the Right to Buy process. He recommends the Council reduces the sale price of Mr X's property to compensate for the extra rent he paid.

  • London Borough of Hackney (17 010 248)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council house sales and leaseholders 24-Oct-2017

    Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's valuation of her rented flat. She says it is too big for her to afford to buy. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Miss X appealed the valuation to the District Valuer which is the proper authority to decide valuation disputes.

  • London Borough of Islington (17 011 368)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council house sales and leaseholders 24-Oct-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about delays in completing a Right to Buy (RTB) application. This is because there is an alternative procedure which the complainant could reasonably use.

  • London Borough of Islington (16 017 923)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council house sales and leaseholders 10-Oct-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's failure to properly process his Right to Buy applications since 2013. The Ombudsman will not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. The first two applications were outside the12 month time limit for accepting complaints. The 2016 application was within the timescale but Mr X has already exercised his right to challenge the valuation by way of the independent District Valuer.

  • London Borough of Enfield (17 001 545)

    Statement Upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 19-Sep-2017

    Summary: The Council delayed in processing Ms X's Right to Buy matter, which was fault. The financial payments already offered by the Council are an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delays. A further remedy is due for the Council delay causing injustice when dealing with Ms X's complaint. The Council apologised for referring Ms X to the wrong ombudsman, which remedies that matter.

  • London Borough of Hackney (16 009 995)

    Statement Upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 25-Aug-2017

    Summary: There is fault with how the Council has dealt with Ms X's Right to Buy application. The Council has offered Ms X a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Haringey (16 009 510)

    Statement Upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 25-Aug-2017

    Summary: There was fault by the Council in relying on incorrect information held on its database when it refused Mr B's right to buy application in 2013. This meant Mr B was denied the opportunity to buy his property at an affordable price. The Council has agreed to sell the property to Mr B at its 2013 value.

  • London Borough of Southwark (16 013 168)

    Statement Upheld Council house sales and leaseholders 14-Aug-2017

    Summary: the Council delayed issuing some right to buy documentation. There is no fault in how the Council handled the remainder of its communications with Mrs B. An apology and payment of £500 is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Bristol City Council (17 005 491)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Council house sales and leaseholders 11-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint that the Council refuses to waive her obligation to repay part of her 'right to buy' discount. It is unlikely we would find fault by the Council and we cannot question the merits of its decision.

;