Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in a Right to Buy transaction because we could not say, on balance of probability, the Council’s delay caused the injustice claimed by the complainant, so the matter does not warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr K complains the Council delayed progressing his Right to Buy (RTB) application with the result the mortgage loan will cost him £1200 to £1800 more over the next five years. He says this is because of the rise in interest rates between mid-2022 and May 2023 when he and the Council completed the transaction. He wants the Council to remedy this extra cost by reducing the purchase price. Mr K also complains the Council did not reply to his contacts with it during the process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered:
• information provided by the complainant;
• the Council’s complaint responses;
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code;
• online information about general interest rate movement in 2022/23; and
• Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985, which governs council tenants’ right to buy their home.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr K applied to buy his home in March 2022, jointly with his son, Mr L, who was 18. The Council sought information to confirm they both qualified to buy the property, and its complaint responses show this was not straightforward as Mr K could not provide precisely what the Council needed. They also show the Council used its discretion to accept other forms of evidence, was in regular contact with Mr K, and admitted his and Mr L’s RTB in July 2022. The Council accepted some shortfall in its communications and paid Mr K £100 to recognise their effect, which is a suitable remedy for that part of the complaint.
5. The Council should by law have issued an Offer Notice to Mr K and Mr L by 6 October 2022, but internal delays getting necessary information meant it did not. The Council said in its complaint responses the delays were beyond the control of its RTB officers, but as they were internal to the Council the Ombudsman would hold it responsible for them in any event.
6. Mr K complained about the delay at the end of October 2022 and the Council’s response and other contacts invited him to serve a notice of delay under section 153A of the Housing Act 1985. Mr K did this in early December and the Council sent the Offer Notice on 20 December 2022. It had been open to Mr K to have served an Initial Notice of Delay in early October, and followed it with an Operative Notice a month later. This would have had the effect of offsetting any rent paid between the dates of the Operative Delay Notice and the Offer Notice against the purchase price. In the event, however, the Council issued the Offer Notice in response to the Initial Notice, making an Operative Notice impossible.
7. The law does not set time scales for the rest of the transaction but if Mr K and
   Mr L thought the Council was delaying unreasonably after that they could have served fresh delay notices to protect their position. Mr K and Mr L completed their purchase in May 2023, but Mr K believes this could have taken place in mid-2022 when he could have obtained a lower fixed rate mortgage. He would like the Council to make a payment to recognise the extra costs he says he and Mr L will pay over the next five years.
8. I recognise the Council may be at fault for some of the delay in this case, but that does not mean it has caused Mr K and Mr L the injustice Mr K claims, or should pay Mr K as he would like because:
• between October and December 2022 the Council’s delay amounted to 11 weeks.
• a mortgage offer is usually valid for three months;
• if Mr K and Mr L had completed the transaction 11 weeks’ earlier, in early March 2023, their mortgage offer could have been no earlier than December 2022, not mid-2022 as Mr K suggests.
• the Bank of England raised interest rates by 2.25% between June and December 2022;
• mortgage lenders offer a variety of products and interests rates which are constantly changing in response to market rates and in anticipation of what may happen in future. By December 2022 Mr K and Mr L’s mortgage lender was already offering the fixed interest rate he obtained in early 2023; and
• it was Mr K and Mr L’s choice to take up a fixed rate mortgage rather than a variable rate, and their mortgage decisions are entirely separate to the Council’s involvement in the RTB transaction.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr K’s complaint because we could not say, on balance of probability, the Council’s delay caused the injustice he claims, so the matter does not warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman