Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s Council tenancy and ‘right to buy’ application. The law prevents us investigating the tenancy matters. The refusal of the ‘right to buy’ application is too closely related to the tenancy point for us to consider it. It is also reasonable to expect Ms X to use her right to go to court.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not change her tenancy from a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy and later refused her application to buy her home. She states this causes her inconvenience and will make buying her home more expensive because of recent changes in the rules.

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 investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. 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)
5. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X and another person were joint tenants of a Council home. The joint tenant moved out some years ago. Ms X told the Council at the time. In 2024 Ms X applied to buy her home. The Council refused the application because the joint tenant had not signed it. Ms X reported she was unaware the tenancy was still joint as she thought the Council had made her the sole tenant when it learned the joint tenant had left. The Council says it did not have all the information necessary to end the joint tenancy and it would not necessarily have given Ms X a sole tenancy then.
9. The Council’s actions regarding whether it should have changed the tenancy from joint to sole relate to the Council’s management of its social housing. The law prevents us considering this, as paragraph 3 explained.
10. The Council’s reasons for refusing Ms X’s ‘right to buy’ application relate directly to the point about the tenancy’s status. Therefore they are too closely related to the matter the law prevents us considering for it to be practicable for us to investigate the refusal of the ‘right to buy’ application. So, using our general discretion as described in paragraph 5, we will not investigate this.
11. Even if the point in paragraph 10 did not apply, there is another reason we will not investigate the refusal of the ‘right to buy’ application. The law allows the county court to decide any dispute about the right to buy (except disputed valuation of property, which is not relevant here). (Housing Act 1985, section 181) Therefore the restriction in paragraph 4 also applies. If Ms X believes the Council was wrong in the circumstances to refuse her application, she could ask the court to decide the matter. 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 be some cost to court action. However, that in itself does not automatically make taking court action unreasonable, particularly in the context of a transaction for a valuable asset such as Ms X’s home. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Ms X to use the right to go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. The law prevents us investigating the Council’s not changing the tenancy when the joint tenant left. The Council’s refusal of the ‘right to buy’ application in this case is too closely related to the matter the law prevents us investigating for us to consider it. It is also reasonable to expect Ms X to use her right to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman