Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council gave him wrong information in 2013 which led to him withdrawing his Right to Buy application. This is because the complaint is late, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, and there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council gave him wrong information in 2013 which led to him withdrawing his Right to Buy (RtB) application. Mr X can no longer afford to purchase his property and wants the Council to sell it to him at the 2013 valuation.

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. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X says that in October 2012, he applied to buy his property under the RtB scheme. Shortly afterwards, Mr X contacted the Council about installing a specialist toilet in his home. Mr X says that in January 2013, he received a letter from the Council’s Housing Adaptations Team. This said the work installing the specialist toilet could not go ahead because of his RtB application. Mr X received an RtB offer letter from the Council in February 2013, and withdrew his RtB application on 08 March 2013. He says this was because of the letter the Council sent him in January. The Council wrote to Mr X on 12 March 2013 with a Schedule of Works for installing the specialist toilet. Mr X submitted a further RtB application in 2015, but he let this lapse because he could no longer afford the property.
7. Mr X says he can no longer afford to buy his property – but had enough money to do this without a mortgage in 2013. Mr X says he only withdrew his RtB application because of what the Council told him. Mr X wants the Council to sell him his property at the 2013 valuation, and to waive the two-year period when a home bought under the RtB scheme cannot be sold.
8. The Council has responded to complaints from Mr X. In its responses it said that:
• It had not been able to speak to the officer who sent the letter in January 2013.
• While the letter said the work could not continue because of the RtB application, it also said the Council would “write to [Mr X] in the near future to inform you [Mr X] whether we are able to carry out this work or not.”
• It is unclear what information was sent to Mr X between January 2013 and March 2013. But Mr X withdrew his RtB application and the Council had a duty to comply with his request.
• Once someone had submitted an RtB application, the Council would not carry out further internal works unless obligated to do so. The adaptation to Mr X’s bathroom did not meet this test.
• The specialist bathroom installation cost over £11,000. If Mr X had continued with his RtB application, “all the indications are” the Council would have reclaimed the money from Mr X.
• Mr X had submitted a further RtB application in 2015 but was only now pursuing his concerns about the 2012 / 13 application.
• There were no grounds for the Council to compel the RtB team to agree to Mr X’s requests.
9. The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are good reasons to do so. I do not consider that to be the case here. I see no reason why Mr X could not have complained much earlier. Mr X could have complained to us in 2013, or in 2015, when he discovered he could no longer afford his property. The exception at paragraph 3 therefore applies to Mr X’s complaint. In reaching this decision I have taken into account the points I make below.
10. The Council says it is not clear what information Mr X was given between January and March 2013. If the Ombudsman were to investigate, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, or reach a safe conclusion about what happened.
11. In deciding whether to investigate, we need to consider what impact the alleged fault had on the person complaining. Mr X says he did not proceed with his RtB application because the Council seemed to be saying he needed to ‘choose’ between the adaptations to his bathroom or the RtB option. This suggests Mr X would not have been able to purchase his property and fund the adaptations to his bathroom. If he could, Mr X would have proceeded with this option in 2013.
12. So, even if the Council had offered different advice in 2013, the options for Mr X would have been as follows:
1. To withdraw his RtB application, and to allow the Council to fund the adaptations to his property.
2. To go ahead with his RtB application, and to allow the Council to fund the adaptations to his property. But, as the Council has said, it would have looked to reclaim the costs of adapting the bathroom. As I say above, if this was something Mr X could afford, then I do not see why he did not purchase the property and arrange and pay for the adaptations himself.
13. Option b) would not therefore seem viable. Different advice from the Council could only have therefore led to the same outcome (Option a)) – Mr X withdrawing his RtB application and the Council funding the work to his bathroom. So, based on the evidence available, there is a lack of injustice to Mr X from the alleged fault.
14. For the reasons set out above an investigation by the Ombudsman is not appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the complaint is late, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, and there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman