Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the discount the Council gave when Miss X bought her home. Miss X could reasonably have used her right to go to court. We will not seek to undo Miss X’s legal agreement with the Council now.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that, when she bought her home from the Council, the Council did not take proper account of previous tenancies she reported having had. Miss X states this meant the Council did not discount the price of her home enough. She says she therefore paid £6,000 to £7,000 too much for her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and a copy complaint response from the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X bought her home from the Council under the ‘right to buy.’ The central point here is the Council’s calculation of the discount and therefore the price it said Miss X should pay for her home. Miss X agreed the price the Council asked and completed the purchase of her home on that basis. She says she only did that because it was during the COVID-19 pandemic and because she says, ‘everything had to be sorted within six months.’ However, it was Miss X’s choice to proceed. She was not forced to accept the Council’s offer or to complete the purchase within six months. At the time of completion, Miss X knew where she had been a tenant and she knew which properties the Council had considered when calculating the discount. So Miss X would reasonably have known then that the Council had not given her the full discount she believed she should have. On such an important matter, Miss X could reasonably have challenged the Council at the time.
8. Also, the law allows the county court to decide a ‘right to buy’ dispute such as this, if the applicant asks the court to decide the question before the sale completes. (Housing Act 1985, section 181) Therefore, the restriction in paragraph 2 applies. In the absence of agreement with the Council, the court could have decided if the Council had calculated the discount correctly. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving such disputes, we normally expect applicants to use it, with legal advice if necessary. There might have been some cost to court action, but that, in itself, did not automatically make taking court action unreasonable, particularly in the context of a transaction for a valuable asset such as Miss X’s home. Court action might also have affected how quickly the sale could complete, but, again, in the context of a significant transaction, that in itself did not make it unreasonable to use the right to go to court. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have used her right to go to court.
9. By agreeing the Council’s offer and buying her home for that price, Miss X made a binding legal agreement with the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council refusing to revisit that binding agreement after the sale completed. It would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman later to seek to undo that contract.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because Miss X could reasonably have used her right to go to court. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council not revisiting its legal agreement with Miss X after the sale’s completion. We will not seek to undo that agreement now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman