Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s ‘right to buy’ claim. Mrs X could have gone to the District Valuer about the level of the Council’s second valuation. Mrs X could reasonably go to court about whether the Council should honour the first valuation and what land Mrs X might buy. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s communications in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s actions regarding her claim to buy her home, especially the Council revaluing the property and increasing the purchase price.

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. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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

6. If a Council tenant claims the right to buy their home, the Council offers a purchase price based on a valuation. The tenant has the right to ask the District Valuer to decide any disagreement about a property’s value. (Housing Act 1985, section 128) The county court can decide any question about a ‘right to buy’ matter except the valuation points that are for the District Valuer. (Housing Act 1985, section 181)
7. Mrs X, a Council tenant, claimed the right to buy her home. A Council surveyor provided a valuation, based on which the Council offered Mrs X a purchase price. Mrs X says the surveyor told her this valuation included a strip of land adjoining the property as well as the house and garden rented under her tenancy. Later, the Council said its valuation had not included that strip of land (which the Council also owns). The Council did another valuation it said included the extra land and offered Mrs X a new purchase price £35,000 higher than the previous price.
8. Mrs X says she does not understand how the extra land can have increased the property’s value by so much. That is an argument about the valuation’s accuracy. Mrs X had the right to challenge this by going to the District Valuer within three months. The law expressly provides this route to resolve such points. The District Valuer has the expertise to resolve disagreements about value and has the power to make a binding decision the Council must follow. The Ombudsman does not have that expertise or power. Mrs X could reasonably have used her right to go to the District Valuer, so we will not investigate this point.
9. Mrs X argues that, even if the Council’s recent valuation is accurate, the Council should either:
1. honour the first valuation, as Mrs X says the Council told her at the time that the first valuation covered everything she was looking to buy; or
2. let her buy the property without the ‘extra’ strip of land.
10. Those points are not for the District Valuer because they are not directly about the actual value of the property. Rather, those points relate to disagreement about what precisely Mrs X should buy. However, the county court could decide those points. The restriction in paragraph 2 therefore applies. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving such disputes, we normally expect tenants to use it, with legal advice if necessary. Mrs X mentions mental health difficulties. However, I am not persuaded that makes it unreasonable to expect her to take court action, especially with legal advice. I note Mrs X has access to legal advice. There might be some cost to court action, but that in itself does not automatically make taking court action unreasonable, particularly in the context of a transaction for a valuable asset such as Mrs X's home. Mrs X could also ask the court for her costs if her action succeeded. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to use the right to go to court on points a) and b) above.
11. Mrs X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s communications with her. She says the Council told her it had made a mistake in telling her the first valuation covered everything. I note the Council apologised ‘…if this was not communicated effectively…’ It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. Mrs X could have taken the valuation point to the District Valuer. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to go to court with her arguments about disregarding the second valuation and whether the Council should sell the property without the strip of land. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s communications in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman