Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in how it carried out a Right to Buy sale of a council property to her and conducted the separate sale of a garage. We will not investigate Ms X’s concerns the Council decided not to include the garage as part of her Right to Buy as she can go to the county court about the matter. We will not investigate Ms X’s concerns about the Council’s valuation of the property as the District Valuer deals with disputes about valuations. We found no evidence of fault by the Council in dealing with Ms X’s Right to Buy application so are completing our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Ms X. She complains there were failings in the way the Council carried out a Right to Buy (RTB) for her property. And in the way it conducted a separate sale of a garage to her causing her stress, worry and additional expenses through solicitor’s fees and a delayed completion date.
2. Ms X says:
• The Council refused to sell the property’s garage to her as part of the RTB. This was despite the garage being in the rear garden and a requirement for her to lease the garage as part of her tenancy.
• A Land Registry document showed the garage as part of the property. Ms X says the Council told her it would change the plan to exclude the garage for the RTB.
• The Council wrongly included the value of the garage in the valuation for the property.
• The Council recently sold a garage to a neighbour in similar circumstances.
• The garage has the same address as a house in the road causing confusion.
• When the Council agreed to sell her the garage it said she needed to complete the RTB and garage purchase on the same date. This caused her to delay completing the house purchase. The Council then said it would not sell the house and garden at the same time. This caused Ms X three weeks of delay between 25 October to 15 November 2021 when purchasing the house. And resulted in her paying three extra weeks of rent which she could have put towards paying her mortgage.
• The Council failed to respond to all points of her complaints.
3. Ms X wants the Council to accept the garage is part of the freehold and readjust the boundary line back to its original position.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated Ms X’s concerns about the way the Council dealt with her Right to Buy application and separate sale of the garage. I have not investigated Ms X’s concerns about whether the Council should include the sale of the garage with the RTB and its valuation of the property. I have explained my reasons for not investigating these points within the decision statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

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

6. 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)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have read the papers submitted by Ms X and spoke to her about the complaint. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
9. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal background - Right to Buy

10. The Right to Buy refers to rights granted under the Housing Act 1985 (Act) to tenants of social landlords including councils to buy their home at a discount provided they meet the criteria.
11. There is a strict procedure with time limits for each stage of the Right to Buy process. The Act provides for a Right to Buy applicant to serve a Notice on the Council if they consider it is delaying on the sale. The Council must either move along the sale or send a counter notice to the tenant explaining what action it has taken or explain why it cannot progress the sale.
12. If the Council does not reply within a month the tenant can complete a ‘operative notice of delay’ form. Any rent the tenant pays while waiting for the Council’s response can be taken off the sale price.
13. If a Council still does not act on notices of delay, a tenant may take their dispute to the County Court, under section 181 of the Act. This section of the Act makes provision for an applicant to ask the Court to decide any issue arising during their application to purchase.
14. The District Valuer decides any disputes over valuations subject to time limits.

What happened in this case

15. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
16. Ms X rents her house from the Council who said she must also rent the garage. Ms X held separate tenancy agreements for the house and garage.
17. Ms X made an RTB application to the Council in April 2021. Officers visited the property to discuss the application with Ms X. Ms X queried whether the sale should include the garage. Ms X said she had two different tenancies for the house and garage. But Land Registry documents showed the garage was within the boundary of the property so she considered it should be part of the sale.
18. Council officers told Ms X she was only entitled to buy what was included in her housing tenancy. It would not include the garage in the sale as she rented it separately. Officers told Ms X she would need to buy the garage separately once she bought the house. The Council said it would do a new plan to exclude the garage and its access with a strip of land for maintenance from the RTB sale.
19. Ms X submitted a stage one complaint to the Council about its decision not to include the garage in the RTB application. Ms X said the Council failed to explain why.
20. The Council responded to the complaint. It said Ms X held separate tenancies for the property and for the garage. Officers explained to Ms X on their visit why the Council would not include the garage in the sale because the Act only allowed Ms X to buy property that fell within her residential tenancy. This was the house. The officers considered Ms X understood why she could not buy the garage, and Ms X said she would possibly look to buy it in the future if she completed the RTB. The Council told Ms X if she decided to end the garage tenancy it would secure the boundary between the garage plot and pathway leading to the rear gate.
21. The Council offered Ms X a price for the house in June 2021 which Ms X accepted. Ms X then completed the financial checking procedure.
22. Ms X’s MP submitted an enquiry on her behalf about the RTB and decision not to include the garage. The Council responded to Ms X and the MP. It explained the requirements of the Act and she could only buy the house because it was in her residential tenancy. The garage was subject to a separate agreement so not included. The Council said it would consider selling Ms X the garage under a private treaty.
23. The Council and Ms X agreed a completion date of 25 October 2021 for the house sale. In October 2021 Ms X asked the Council if she could buy the garage. Ms X received a response advising her the Council ran a scheme to enable people to buy underutilised Council owned land adjoining their properties. It was only open to a privately owned adjoining land holder. The Council did not consider the garage meet the criteria of underutilised Council owned land. And as she was a council tenant, she would not be eligible to buy it.
24. Documents show however shortly afterwards the Council agreed to sell the garage to Ms X. Ms X was concerned that if the garage was included in the sale, it would delay the RTB. In October 2021 an officer told Ms X the sale of the garage would have to be completed simultaneously with the sale of the house. Officers corresponded with Ms X’s solicitors and advised the sale of the garage was separate from the RTB and not included in the sale. So, the land transaction for the garage would not complete at the same time as the RTB. The Council said it intended to complete the RTB on 15 November 2021.
25. Ms X corresponded with the Council in November 2021. Officers told Ms X of the correspondence with her solicitors. It said the land transactions would complete at different times with the RTB sale due to complete as planned on 15 November 2021.
26. Ms X made a stage two complaint to the Council. In summary Ms X complained :
• The Council refused to allow her to buy the garage as part of the RTB sale despite the advert to rent her property saying it was compulsory to rent it.
• She provided Land Registry documents showing the garage within the property boundary and Council officers confirmed the garage belonged to the property.
• The electricity supply for the garage was supplied from her property.
• The Council allowed a neighbour to buy a garage with their RTB so it should allow her to do the same.
• The Council’s valuation for the house wrongly included the value of the garage.
• Ms X had not received timely responses to her queries.
• The Council told Ms X it did not sell garages and then changed its mind, so she had no faith in the Council’s responses.
27. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It told Ms X she was aware before signing the RTB the garage was not included in the sale as she had a separate agreement to rent the garage. The Council offered to sell Ms X the garage by private treaty, and she was currently waiting for a purchase price. Ms X’s solicitors were aware it would be a separate transaction and would not complete at the same time. The Council said normally the intended purchaser pays the Council the external valuation costs in advance. But it was aware she had been having conversations with the Council for some time so was prepared to waive the valuation costs to ease the process and save time. The Council said Ms X was not entitled to any RTB discount on the garage.
28. The Council acknowledged it was compulsory to rent the garage, but this did not mean she had a legal right to buy it. The Council confirmed the title plan Ms X got was not representative of the boundary of her tenancy. The land she had under the tenancy agreement and garage agreement were separate. The Council said none of the officers who spoke to Ms X told her the garage was part of her property.
29. The Council said it would isolate the electricity supply to the garage if Ms X decided not to pursue it as a separate purchase. So, it would be independent from any supply of electricity from her home. The Council accepted it had made an error when allowing a neighbour to buy a garage as part of an RTB. It said this did not justify making the same error with her application. The Council confirmed the property valuation excluded the garage from the price.
30. The Council considered officers had responded to Ms X’s concerns. It said officers told Ms X in early April 2021 of the option to buy the garage and there was no evidence to show otherwise. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaints.
31. Ms X’s RTB the house completed on 15 November 2021. Ms X says the garage sale has yet to be completed.

The Council’s comments on the complaint

32. The Council confirms it is willing to dispose of the garage to Ms X subject to agreeing satisfactory terms and conditions. It sent head of terms to Ms X in February 2022. Ms X has contested the price and method of calculation. But has not put forward any counterproposal for the Council to consider. Once it agrees acceptable terms it will arrange for the private sale to go ahead.
33. The Council says it did not agree to complete the garage sale at the same time as the RTB. But told Ms X it would be willing to try and complete the garage sale as soon as possible. The Council says it was always at Ms X’s discretion when to proceed with the RTB purchase. The Council did not instigate or insist on a delay over the RTB completion although Ms X may not have proceeded as quickly as she could have done.
34. The Council says as the seller it is required to comply with the statutory timescales and Ms X as the buyer has remedies available to her if the Council delays by serving a notice. But Ms X did not pursue this option.
35. The Council says it can identify its garages in anyway it chooses. The way it has numbered the garages in Ms X’s road does not imply they belong with any particular residential address. And its numbering of a garage does not create a new postal address. The Council usually numbers the garages sequentially and it must be identifiable for the letting agreement for the garage. The Council confirms Ms X was aware the garage was numbered in the way it was when she started to rent it and the numbering did not cause any confusion then.

My assessment

36. The central point of the complaint is Ms X’s and the Council’s disagreement about whether the Council could and should sell the garage as part of the ‘right to buy’ transaction when it sold the house. The county court can decide any question about a right to buy transaction (except valuation matters, which are for the district valuer). The court could decide a dispute about what the sale should include. Ms X had the right to take this matter to the county court before she completed buying her house. So, the restriction described in paragraph six applies.
37. The law expressly gives the county court the power to decide such questions. The court can make a binding order if it sees fit. There might have been some cost to court action, but that would not automatically mean it would not have been reasonable to take court action. That is especially so when buying a property, which is a valuable asset. I consider it would have been reasonable to expect Ms X to take court action which would include any concerns she may have about what the Council included in the title deeds and plans. Therefore, we cannot investigate this point.
38. Ms X refers to the Council’s decision to sell a garage to a neighbour under RTB. The Council accepts it did so in error and so this does not justify it doing the same for Ms X when the Act is clear on what can be sold. Ms X may not agree and consider the Council should sell the garage to her. But her means to challenge this decision is to go to the county court. This is because it falls within the court’s remit as to what should be included in the RTB sale.
39. The Council and Ms X also disagree about whether the Council’s valuation of the house included the garage’s value. The district valuer can decide a dispute about a property’s value. If Ms X believed the Council was trying to charge her for the garage, despite not including the garage in the house sale, it would have been reasonable for her to raise this with the district valuer, who has the expertise and power to decide such points. So, we will not investigate this point.
40. The Council’s documents show it told Ms X early in the RTB process she could purchase the garage once she bought the house. Ms X says there was some confusion over whether the Council would sell the garage to her. This is because an officer advised in October 2021, she could not buy the garage as a council tenant, and it was not underutilised land.
41. The Council’s documents show it told Ms X previously she could not buy the garage until she bought house. This is because she would no longer be a council tenant. So, the information given to her in October 2021 was correct as she was not a private landowner at that point. I understand it may have caused Ms X some confusion. But the evidence shows the Council agreed to sell garage to her shortly afterwards and so Ms X has not been disadvantaged in anyway. Because of this I do not consider it is such a significant issue to warrant further investigation.
42. Ms X says the Council said she needed to complete house and garage sale at the same time, and this caused her to delay the house purchase. Ms X provided a copy of the Council’s email advising her completion should be on the same day. But documents show the Council resolved the matter quickly in correspondence with Ms X’s solicitors. The Council said the transactions were separate and would not be completed together. The Council advised of a new completion date for the house. So, the completion date changed by a few weeks. It is not unusual for completion dates to change during land transactions. But if Ms X considered the Council was delaying it was open to her to use the delay procedure and serve the appropriate notice on the Council.
43. Ms X says she was caused extra expense because she had to contact her solicitors about the matter. But sale transactions can be complicated, and issues can arise during the process. Because of this I cannot say that Ms X would not have been put to any additional expenses throughout the RTB transaction procedure. The Council agreed to waive some valuation fees which Ms X would normally have to pay in recognition of the conversations about the garage. So, Ms X has already received some reduction in the fees she was due to pay. I do not consider any further investigation will achieve anything further for her. And so, it is not proportionate for us to investigate further the delay Ms X alleges occurred.
44. The garage sale is ongoing, so it is for Ms X and the Council to progress. The Council explained how it numbers the garages. And the numbering in Ms X’s road does not imply it belongs to a certain property but is a way of identifying each garage. If Ms X still has concerns about the numbering it may be an issue she can resolve as part of the garage purchase.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I am completing my investigation. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Ms X’s RTB application. Ms X’s main concerns about buying the garage could have gone to court and the district valuer could have considered whether the value wrongly included the garage. So we not investigate these issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman