Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the Right to Buy process. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to use the alternative court remedy which is available.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of its request for information to support her Right to Buy (RTB) application. In particular, she says:
• the Council did not give a deadline for submitting the supporting information.
• the Council should have advised her not to delay in submitting partial information, even if other information remained outstanding.
• the Council did not advise her that it had made its own enquiries of Miss X’s previous landlords, and had received sufficient information to confirm compliance with the tenancy qualifying period requirements.
2. As a result, Miss X’s application was denied because the Council had not received all the requested documents/information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Housing Act 1985 carries a specific provision for RTB applicants to challenge any matter arising in the process in the County Court. The Ombudsman would normally consider it reasonable for Miss X to challenge the Council’s rejection of her application by way of this alternative court remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to use the alternative court remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman