Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his Right to Buy application. The Council apologised for withdrawing his application in error and including inaccurate information in a notice and allowed him extra time to complete the application. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Further, it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the District Valuer if he disagreed with the property valuation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his Right to Buy application. He said it had not been transparent about the transaction cost, had not properly addressed his concerns about a joint title and there were failings in the process.
2. Mr X said that, as a result of Council failings, he was not able to verify key information, which affected his ability to proceed with the purchase.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Mr X applied to buy his Council property through the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme, which enables applicants to purchase their Council property at a discount on the market value. In mid-January 2025, the Council issued a Notice that stated:
• It approved the sale of the property for a stated sum, calculated on the basis of a valuation of £410,000 and the maximum discount that could be applied;
• As the property was recently built, there was a “cost floor price”, which meant the sale price would be £475,000;
• There was a right of appeal against the valuation to the District Valuer within three months of the date of the Notice.
9. Later in January, the Council withdrew the Notice because it said the property had been significantly adapted, which was incorrect. The error was identified a few days later and the RTB application reinstated by the end of the month.
10. In various communications with Mr X, the Council:
• Apologised for withdrawing the application in error and for including incorrect address details on that notification;
• Confirmed the sale price was the price it had paid for the property and provided evidence of the price paid;
• Confirmed the fact that the property shared a legal title with another property did not affect the valuation and that its legal team would arrange for the title to be separated if the purchase went ahead; and
• Agreed to extend the deadline for Mr X to decide whether to go ahead with the purchase.
11. Mr X remained unhappy the Council had not provided a breakdown to show how the sale price of £475,000 was calculated.

My assessment

12. The Council has already apologised for wrongly withdrawing the RTB application. It identified the error and reinstated the application without delay, so an apology is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
13. Although the section 125 Notice was confusing, the Council subsequently explained the “cost floor price” was the amount it had paid for Mr X’s property when purchasing it on the open market and that it could not sell the property for less than that sum. It provided evidence of the amount paid. It confirmed the joint title did not affect the valuation and that the title would be split if the purchase went ahead. It also extended the deadline for Mr X to decide whether to go ahead with the purchase. In the circumstances, any fault did not cause a sufficient injustice to Mr X to justify further investigation. In any case, Mr X had the right to appeal to the District Valuer, part of His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) if he disagreed with the valuation and it was reasonable for him to do so.
14. For the reasons set out above, we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and because it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the District Valuer if he was unhappy with the property valuation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman