Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of progress with Miss X’s application to buy her Council home. This is because it would be reasonable to expect Miss X to go to court.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council is delaying dealing with her application to buy her home from the Council. She says this causes her distress as she wants to proceed with buying her home.

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. 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. If a council delays progressing a ‘right to buy’ application, the applicant can serve an ‘initial notice of delay.’ If the Council does not respond within a month, the applicant can serve an ‘operative notice of delay,’ which means any rent the applicant pays thereafter will be deducted from the eventual purchase price.
6. Ms X says the Council accepted her right to buy but has not progressed it since April 2021. She served the initial and then the operative notice of delay. The latter resulted in a standard email from the Council saying the Council was having ‘considerable delays at all stages of the right to buy procedure…’ Ms X has heard nothing since.
7. The law gives the county court jurisdiction to entertain any right to buy proceedings and ‘to determine any question’ about right to buy matters (except to decide valuation points, which are not directly relevant here). (Housing Act 1985, section 181A) The Council’s seeming failure to act on the delay notices creates a question of whether it is wrongly preventing the sale progressing. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies.
8. As the law expressly provides the right to go to court, we normally expect people to use that right. The court is likely to hear and decide the matter more quickly than awaiting the Ombudsman’s investigation and decision. Also, the court could make a binding order on Council if it saw fit, whereas the Ombudsman can only make recommendations.
9. I realise there might be a cost implication in going to court. However, that in itself is not a reason for the Ombudsman to investigate in this case. Miss X could ask the court for her costs if her court action were to succeed. Also, the possible cost of applying to the court is not likely to be disproportionate in the context of buying a property.
10. On balance, in the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect Miss X to take court action if she is dissatisfied with the Council not progressing the application.
11. Ms X has protected her financial position in terms of rent payments by serving the delay notices. So there is nothing more for the Ombudsman to achieve on that point.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman