Summary: The Ombudsman will not pursue this complaint about the Council not letting Mr B buy his home in 1990. This is because the complaint is late and because Mr B had the right to go to court.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council did not let him buy his home in 1990. He says this has resulted in him paying over £72,000 in rent since then rather than buying his home for £28,160.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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, or would have been, 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

5. I considered the information Mr B provided and the relevant law and guidance. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B is a Council tenant. In 1990 he sought to buy his home from the Council under the right to buy scheme. The Council offered to sell the home to Mr B for £28,160. However, the sale did not go ahead. Mr B reports this is because the Council said, incorrectly, that he had rent arrears.
7. Mr B knew of this matter around 29 years ago so the restriction in paragraph 3 applies. I consider Mr B could reasonably have known he was unhappy about such a significant matter at the time. He could reasonably have complained to us within twelve months or in any event well before now. The Ombudsman’s office has existed since 1974. Organisations such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, law centres and advice agencies might all have been able to help Mr B pursue the matter and complain to us. I do not consider there are good reason to accept the complaint now.
8. Also, I consider it would be extremely difficult to reach a clear enough view now about events around 29 years ago. For this reason also, using the Ombudsman’s general discretion to decide whether to begin an investigation, I shall not pursue this complaint due to the length of time since the events.
9. Since 1986, the county court has had power to decide any right to buy dispute (except valuation disputes, not relevant to this complaint). So, if in the early 1990s the Council either stopped communicating with Mr B about his right to buy application or expressly refused his application due to alleged rent arrears, Mr B could have challenged that in court. This means the restriction described in paragraph 4 also applies to this complaint.
10. Mr B mentions his solicitor stopped representing him. However, other solicitors in London would probably have dealt with right to buy matters then. Mr B could alternatively have sought help from a Citizens Advice Bureau, law centre or advice agency or taken court action himself. I have not seen good reason to conclude it was not reasonable to expect Mr B to have taken court action.
11. Mr B sent me documents showing the Council refused his later applications to buy his home in 2014 and 2017. The restrictions in paragraphs 3 and 4 apply to any complaint about those decisions, too. I do not see good reasons to investigate those decisions. I also note the 2014 and 2017 decisions do not appear central to Mr B’s complaint, which mainly focusses on the 1990 events and their consequences.
12. For the above reasons, I shall not pursue this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and Mr B also had the right to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman