Summary: Mrs X complains about a Section 157 restriction on her house which she says makes it difficult to sell. The Ombudsman will not investigate her complaint. This is because Mrs X’s complaint is late. There is also not enough evidence of fault, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the response Mrs X has already received from the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about a Section 157 restriction on her house. This limits who can buy the house. Mrs X says this makes the house difficult to sell and wants the restriction removed.

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
• 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mrs X bought her house in 2002. The house is covered by a restriction under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985. This means the house can only be bought by people who have lived in the area for three years before the purchase. The restriction is in place to stop former council owned properties being bought as second or holiday homes, and to try and keep them available for local people.
7. Mrs X says that when she bought her house, she was told all houses in the area had the same restriction. But in April 2012, Mrs X says she discovered her house was the only privately owned one with a Section 157 restriction. Mrs X says the Council said the restriction could not be removed, but it would reconsider the situation if the house could not be sold after a certain period.
8. Mrs X says that in April 2014, she again contacted the Council about the restriction and met with council officers. She says the Council said it would ask the Land Registry to remove the restriction if the house had not sold within six months.
9. In December 2019, Mrs X decided to sell her house. Mrs X says several people viewed it, but none could buy the house because of the Section 157 restriction. In April 2020, Mrs X complained to the Council. In its responses to Mrs X the Council said:
• It transferred most of its housing stock in 1991 to a Housing Association which removed the Section 157 restriction from some of the properties it sold.
• Many of the properties owned and rented by the Housing Association do still have a Section 157 restriction.
• Its records show other houses in the same area as Mrs X’s are still covered by a Section 157 restriction.
• It has no records of the discussion which took place in 2014.
• The Council would not agree to the restriction being removed. But, if Mrs X could show she had properly marketed the house for a year, the Council would agree to the house being sold to a person who did not meet the Section 157 criteria. Anyone could then buy the house, but the restriction would remain on its title.

Assessment

10. Mrs X says she was aware of the Section 157 restriction on her property when she bought it in 2002. She raised concerns with the Council about it in 2012 and 2014.
11. 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 Mrs X could not have complained much earlier, and so the exception at paragraph 3 applies to her complaint.
12. But even if Mrs X’s complaint was not late, it is not one we would investigate. Mrs X says her house is the only one with a Section 157 restriction. The Council disputes this. But even if other houses are no longer covered by such a restriction, this is not evidence of fault by the Council. It has explained to Mrs X why the restriction exists, and as I explain above, Mrs X was aware of the restriction when she bought her house.
13. Mrs X says that in 2014 the Council said it would remove the restriction if the property did not sell within six months. I was not at that meeting and the Council says it has no record of what was discussed. It would therefore be impossible to establish with certainty what was said. But the offer to remove the restriction would seem to be in line with what the Council has now said. If the property is correctly marketed for a year, it will agree to anyone buying the house. While I know Mrs X would like the restriction completely removed, the Council’s decision is in line with its published policy. So, even if the complaint was not late, I do not see enough evidence of fault to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman