Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed the processing of the complainant’s Right to Buy application. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used the statutory notice of delay procedure and, if needed, to have taken the Council to court.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council took 18 months to process her Right to Buy (RTB) application, and thinks it should refund the rent she paid during the periods of delay.

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.
3. We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could have taken the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to have gone to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. There is a strict procedure with time limits for each stage of the RTB process. The procedure also provides for an applicant to serve a ‘notice of delay’ on the Council if they consider it is delaying the sale.
7. 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. 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.
8. 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 Housing Act. This makes provision for an applicant to ask the Court to decide any issue/disputes arising during their application to purchase.
9. The law expressly provides this route for RTB disputes, so we normally expect people to use it. 
10. I find it was reasonable for Mrs X, who had a solicitor representing her, to have continued to use the notice of delay process and, if necessary, to have gone to court, when she experienced delays in the purchase of the property.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to use the notice of delay procedure, and if needed, to have taken the Council to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman