Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Mr X’s late father’s Council home. The law prevents us considering the Council’s management of social housing, so we cannot consider the disrepair. Mr X’s claimed injustice from delays in the ‘right to buy’ process is indirect and somewhat speculative. It is for the courts to decide if there was negligence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with repairs to his late father’s Council home and delayed progressing his father’s application to buy the property. Sadly, Mr X’s father died before he could complete the purchase. Mr X says this denied him a future inheritance of over £120,000.

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. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Complaint about disrepair in the property

6. Mr X says the Council allowed his father’s property to fall into disrepair over several years. This concerns the Council’s management of social housing as a registered social housing provider. Therefore the law prevents us from considering this part of the complaint, as paragraph 2 explained.

Complaint about ‘right to buy’ delays

7. The Council did not have a direct duty to, or relationship with, Mr X here. The Council’s direct relationship was with its tenant, Mr X’s late father. So Mr X’s claimed injustice from the Council’s alleged faults is only indirect. This means we do not have enough grounds to ask the Council to do anything for Mr X.
8. Regarding any inheritance Mr X expected, any capital Mr X’s late father was going to use to buy the property presumably remained intact. That is what Mr X could expect to inherit. He could not automatically expect to inherit a sum based on theoretical profit from an asset his father did not yet own, or from a discount his father, not he, was entitled to. To that extent, any perceived loss is somewhat speculative, though I understand Mr X’s view that he might have lost out.
9. Nor is it likely we could conclude with enough confidence that, but for any undue delay by the Council, Mr X would have bought the property for his executors to now sell, or what the profit from such a sale might be. The parts of the process complained of would necessarily have taken some time, though not necessarily as much time as they actually took. The house purchase was Mr X’s father’s transaction, not Mr X’s. Mr X’s father had the right to serve initial and operative notices of delay if he believed certain stages of the process were taking too long. We do not know how the timescales might have been different had notice been served. So the length of any avoidable, undue delay, its possible impact on whether the sale would have completed before Mr X’s father died, and any consequential impact on Mr X’s inheritance are all speculative.
10. Mr X argues the Council’s actions amounted to negligence. Negligence is a matter for the courts because the tests for negligence – which are not necessarily straightforward legally - are tests for the court to apply, not the Ombudsman. It would also be for the courts to decide whether, in this case, the executors of the estate could bring any such claim or whether Mr X himself can do so as a beneficiary of the estate.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The law prevents us considering the Council’s actions about disrepair. Mr X’s claimed injustice from the right to buy point is indirect and somewhat speculative. The argument about negligence is for the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman