Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her Right to Buy application. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it would be reasonable to expect Ms X to take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. Mr Q, a solicitor, complained on behalf of Ms X about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s Right to Buy application. He says the Council has deliberately blocked her application and discriminated against her. The delay has caused stress to Ms X and she has had to pay rent on a property she could have been paying a mortgage on.

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. 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. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr Q and considered the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr Q the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X lives with her mother in a Council property. Her mother is the sole tenant having succeeded to the tenancy from Ms X’s father. Ms X and her mother decided to buy the property under the Right to Buy legislation.
6. There appears to have been some confusion initially about whether the Council would allow Ms X to join her mother on the Right to Buy application. However, the Council has now clarified that Ms X was named on the application and it was accepted she could be included with her mother.
7. However, when they sought a mortgage they were told by the lender that Ms X’s mother was too old to be included on the mortgage and that it would have to be in Ms X’s sole name.
8. When Ms X then asked the Council for the Right to Buy to be changed to her sole name the application did not progress.
9. In responding to a query I made about this matter the Council has clarified the position is that once a family member is accepted on the Right to Buy application they should be treated as a secure tenant for the purpose of the application. However, it says that if Ms X’s mother was removed the Right to Buy could not go ahead because the circumstances are such that Ms X could not accrue her own qualifying tenancy to meet the minimum criteria as there are no grounds for Ms X to have the benefit of her mother’s qualifying tenancy without her mother still being part of the application. Mr Q disputes this view.

Assessment

10. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Ms X’s complaint. She can challenge the Council’s view of her case in the courts and as she has this legal remedy which we would reasonably expect her to use, the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction.
11. Mr Q has referred to discriminatory action by the Council against Ms X because it does not want the Right to Buy to go ahead. However, we will not investigate this matter when the outcome sought is the completion of the application in Ms X’s sole name and she can use the court remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable to expect Ms X to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman