Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in processing his parents’ Right to Buy application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. Mr X’s parents could have triggered the statutory Notice of Delay procedure if they had met all the requirements of the Right to Buy procedure.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains that the Council delayed his parents’ Right to Buy application despite a previous complaint to the Ombudsman in 2017 which upheld his complaint about delay. He wants the Council to complete the sale of his parents’ home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 would find fault, or
• 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in 2017 about delay in the Council's handling of his parents’ Right to Buy application. We found there was some fault in the Council’s actions. We recommended that it served a new Anti-Money Laundering Questionnaire and when received it would write to the applicants if further information was needed about financing the application.
6. The Council issued the new Questionnaire in June 2017, but it was not returned. Mr X met Council representatives in August 2017 and said he would complete the Questionnaire. The Council wrote to his solicitors in February 2018 asking for confirmation of the completed questionnaire and mortgage offer. In July 2018 the forms were returned from the solicitors and the Council continued to ask for further clarification of income from then until October. The Council then asked for verification of the source of third-party finance for the application.
7. The Council remained dissatisfied with evidence about the source of the finance and would not accept the application was valid under its due diligence requirements. In 2019 Mr X’s parents’ offer of a mortgage was declined and so the application fell through.
8. Mr X was advised in our previous decision that it was reasonable for his parents’ solicitors to initiate the statutory Notice of Delay Procedure if they wished to challenge the Council’s failure to progress their application. We did not recommend that the Council complete the sale but only that it should re-issue the questionnaire. It did so and this was not returned for 13 months. We recommended that the Council should write if it required further information under due diligence which it did. The Council was not satisfied with the evidence about the source of funding for the application.
9. Our investigator made it clear in 2017 that Mr X’s parents have the right to go to Court under section 181 of the Housing Act 1985 to seek a declaration to resolve the dispute should the application be declined.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. Mr X’s parents could have triggered the statutory Notice of Delay procedure if they had met all the requirements of the Right to Buy procedure.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman