Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s administration of a right to buy application. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council and we are satisfied with the action it has taken.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, complains on behalf of his mother, who I shall call Mrs Y. Mr X is unhappy about the way the Council has dealt with Mrs Y’s right to buy application. He has complained about its poor communication and incorrect procedure in cancelling the application.

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

What I found

What happened

3. Mr X is dealing with the Council, on Mrs Y’s behalf, about her right to buy application. He telephoned the Council in September and October 2019 with questions about the progress of the application. He says staff gave him incorrect information, did not appear to understand the process and were rude to him. He also says the Council had wrongly cancelled the application.
4. Mr X complained to the Council in October 2019. He asked for monetary compensation for the treatment he had received and impact of its failures. In response it said:
• It accepted the quality of communication in calls with Mr X was below its expected standard. It apologised and said this would be addressed by further training. It would not offer monetary compensation as there had been no adverse consequences.
• Its legal team had not been aware that solicitors had not yet been instructed on Mrs Y’s application. This is why the application was closed when there was no reply to letters sent to the solicitors named in the application. Once this came to light, the Council reinstated the application, as confirmed to Mr X on 4 October 2019. No delay was caused and it would not offer any monetary compensation.
• There is no recording available of Mr X’s call with the member of staff he had named as being rude, so the Council cannot come to a reliable conclusion on his complaint about this. It apologised if Mr X felt the behaviour was unacceptable.

Assessment

5. The Council listened to a number of its calls with Mr X and accepted there were faults in its communication with him. It has apologised and confirmed it will address this by further training. I consider this is a satisfactory way to address these faults and we will not investigate this issue further.
6. Mr X has told us the Council was wrong to cancel the application as the 12 week period allowed for its completion had not yet elapsed. And he had to make many phone calls to the Council before it agreed to reinstate the application. However, the application was reinstated, without any delay to the process, or significant injustice to Mr X. I consider the reinstatement was a satisfactory way to address any fault here and we will not pursue this matter further.
7. There is no record of Mr X’s phone conversation with the officer he said was rude to him. The Council says there was no recording because this was an outbound call. As a result, we would not be able to obtain sufficient objective evidence to justify finding fault with the Council about this matter. In any case the Council has already apologised to Mr X for any upset he was caused because of the conversation, and this is a suitable remedy for any injustice he suffered.

Back to top

Final decision

8. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, it is unlikely I could add to any previous investigation by the Council and I am satisfied with the action it has taken.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman