Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an error made by the Council when the complainant bought her home from the Council in 2004. The Council has offered to pay the complainant’s legal fees and a further £250 in recognition of the inconvenience caused. We consider this to be a suitable remedy to the complaint and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Ms X, says the Council failed to tell her that a carport was not included in the sale when she bought her property from the Council in 2004.
2. Ms X says the Council’s error caused two house sales to fall through. She wants the Council to pay her £1,000 for the council tax she has had to pay in addition to the legal fees and compensation for inconvenience which it has already offered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X which includes the Council’s final response to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council accepts it made an error in 2004, when it sold Ms X her home with a carport. It says the carport should not have been included in the sale as it was owned by a third-party.
7. However, the Council also confirms that Ms X’s solicitors were responsible for checking the property title to ensure the seller was entitled to sell the property. In this case it appears the solicitors did not fully check the title as this would have revealed the Council did not own the car port.
8. The Council also says at the point-of-sale the Land Registry advised Ms X’s solicitors the carport was not part of the title deeds. However, they did not tell the Council of this in 2004.
9. Once it was made aware of the error, the Council offered to pay Ms X’s legal fees for correcting the matter. It also offered £250 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to Ms X.
10. I understand Ms X wants a further £1,000 which she says represents the council tax she has paid on the property because she has lost two sales because of the Council’s error.
11. I will not investigate this complaint. The Council accepts it made the error in 2004 when including a carport that did not belong to them in the Right to Buy sale to Ms X. However, the onus is on the buyer and the buyer’s solicitor to check those selling the property are entitled to sell it. If any part of the property is unregistered, they should check the title documents by carrying out a Land Registry search of the proposed purchase land.
12. Ms X’s solicitor was told by the Land Registry that the carport would not be part of the purchase in 2004. But they did not request rectification of the deeds and did not tell the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council has offered to pay her legal fees for correcting the error which occurred in 2004. It also offered £250 for the inconvenience she has experienced. We consider this is a suitable remedy to Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman