Summary: Miss X complained the Council has wrongly refused to waive the requirement to pay back the Right to Buy discount. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr Y’s request to exercise discretion not to recover all or part of the Right to Buy discount for his home.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council has wrongly refused to waive the requirement to pay back the Right to Buy discount. Miss X says the move is necessary due to a severe deterioration in Mr Y’s health but they are unable to move unless the repayment is waived due to financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Right to Buy Scheme

6. Under the Government’s Right to Buy scheme, a secure council tenant can buy their home, if they meet qualifying criteria, at a lower price than the full market value. A discount is calculated based on the length of time they have been a tenant. The law governing the Right to Buy scheme is in the Housing Act 1985.
7. Right to Buy homeowners will have to pay back some or all of the discount received if they sell their Right to Buy home within 5 years of buying it. If they sell within the first year they will have to repay the full discount. After that the amount they pay back reduces by one fifth each year.
8. Councils have discretion to waive the repayment of the Right to Buy discount. Government guidance (Right to Buy: a guide for local authorities) says this should only be considered in cases where there are exceptional circumstances. This could include the sudden onset of illness or serious deterioration of an existing condition, bereavement, relationship breakdown or harassment. It will normally be necessary to establish both the facts justifying the move and that such a move could not take place unless part or all of the repayable discount were to be waived.

What happened here

9. Mr Y bought his property under the Right to Buy scheme in August 2021. In November 2024 Mr Y told the Council they needed to move for medical reasons and asked it to waive repayment of the discount. Mr Y provided a financial statement confirming their income and expenditure, a copy of the mortgage redemption statement and letters from medical professionals involved in his care.
10. The Council asked Mr Y to provide additional information about the difficulties he was experiencing with his neighbours and the legal case he was involved in.
11. Mr Y’s daughter Miss X responded in detail. She told the Council there were ongoing anti-social behaviour issues with the neighbours which had led to a deterioration in Mr Y’s health. Miss X said they had discussed the anti-social behaviour and harassment from their neighbours with their local councillor.
12. In addition Miss X told the Council they had instructed solicitors in respect of a nuisance and negligence case against their neighbours. She said their neighbour had failed to act on a defect with their property which affected their use of the property due to risk of personal injury.
13. The Council considered Mr Y’s request and responded in February 2025. While it said it was sympathetic to the circumstances surrounding Mr Y’s need to move it did not agree to waive the repayment of the Right to Buy discount.
14. In reaching this decision the Council said it had considered whether the facts justified a need to move and whether the repaying the discount would cause personal hardship. The Council noted it had not received any evidence from the Police or its anti-social behaviour team concerning threats of violence or significant harm. On this basis Mr Y did not meet the criteria to justify a need to move.
15. The Council also considered the financial information provided and noted there was no outstanding mortgage on the property. This had been cleared within two and a half years of the purchase. Based on the market value of the property and the amount to be repaid the Council calculated Mr Y would have £156,000 equity towards his next home. It also calculated that Mr Y’s expenses exceeded his income by just under £50 per month.
16. On this basis the Council considered Mr Y could move without the waiver of the repayable discount.
17. Miss X disagreed with the Council’s decision and asked how to appeal. She was concerned the Council’s response did not take account of the medical evidence confirming a severe deterioration in Mr Y’s mental health.
18. Miss X also confirmed that she and her sibling had repaid the mortgage to assist their parents. She said their parents could not afford the repayments and they intervened to alleviate Mr Y’s stress and fear of losing the property. Miss X did not consider £156,000 was sufficient to buy a property. She asserted Mr Y would need a mortgage which he could not afford. Miss X disagreed there would be no financial hardship.
19. The Council advised Miss X it did not have a formal appeal process for the waiver of the Right to Buy discount. It suggested she could make a complaint through the Council’s complaint process if she wanted a review of the decision.
20. Miss X made a formal complaint in March 2025. She maintained Mr Y’s circumstances should be classed as exceptional and that they fulfilled the requirements for the Council to exercise its discretionary powers. Although there was no evidence from the police or the Council’s anti-social behaviour team, Miss X said they had raised concerns with city wardens and councillors.
21. Miss X also believed they had provided sufficient evidence to justify a move based on Mr Y’s severe medical condition. She noted letters from Mr Y’s specialist mental health practitioners refer to the decline in Mr Y’s mental health and suggest moving home would assist.
22. In considering Mr Y’s finances Miss X asserted the Council should not include his Personal Independence Payment (PIP) as income. She said that when the PIP is not included in the calculation Mr Y has a monthly shortfall of almost £785 which she and her sibling support Mr Y with. Miss X considered there was clear evidence there would be significant hardship and a move would not be possible without the discount being waived.
23. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint and maintained the discount repayment requirements applied. It noted that beyond Miss X’s personal account there was no supporting documentation from an independent source confirming the necessity of the move.
24. The Council said it could not rely solely on personal statements. It required clear and substantial evidence, typically from the police, community safety teams or medical professionals. Without such evidence the Council was unable to facilitate or subsidise a move.
25. As a public landlord the Council said it would be inappropriate to apply public funds to support the waiver of a repayment it was not in a position to justify. The Council considered Miss X’s financial support with the mortgage was a personal decision.
26. Miss X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns. She would like the Council to wave the discount in whole or part so that Mr Y can move. Miss X complains the Council has ignored medical evidence which says moving is likely to help Mr Y’s mental health and evidence of significant financial hardship.
27. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed it does not have a published policy specific to waiving repayment of Right to Buy discounts. It does not consider a policy is necessary given the clear legislation and guidance available from central government. It also notes that this is an infrequent request.
28. The Council says requests of this nature are considered on a case by case basis by senior officers. In doing so, it takes account of any relevant supporting information provided by the applicant, including evidence of hardship, medical circumstances, or other exceptional factors.
29. The Council says it aims to assess such requests reasonably and fairly, with reference to national guidance and relevant case law. The national guidance is that the decision is discretionary, and cases of genuine hardship can be considered.
30. In this instance the Council says the information and medical evidence provided highlighted Mr Y needed to move because of the impact his housing, issues with his neighbours, a legal case, and financial strains had on his health. It reviewed the medical evidence and does not dispute Mr Y has these medical conditions.
31. However, the medical evidence provided could not on its own verify the anti-social behaviour. There was no independent verification or evidence of the anti-social behaviour from the police or of reports made to the community safety team. It says it requires evidence from these sources to help establish and verify the level of anti-social behaviour taking place. The Council says it could not establish that anti-social behaviour had taken place or that it was a contributory cause of Mr Y’s health issues.
32. In relation to Mr Y’s finances the Council acknowledges that disregarding Mr Y’s PIP would lead to a monthly shortfall of almost £785. However it assumed the PIP was used to cover the outgoings related to Mr Y’s disability needs which were already included in the statement.
33. The Council was also satisfied it is possible to buy a property in Leicester for £156,000 and that Mr Y could move without having a mortgage or increasing his outgoings. It also noted Mr Y had access to funds and support from his family.

Analysis

34. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether to waive the discount repayment; that is the Council’s job. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made, and where we find fault, to determine whether a significant injustice was caused to the individual complainant.
35. Mr Y and Miss X disagree with the decision not to waive the discount repayment but I am satisfied the Council took account of all the relevant evidence and followed a proper decision-making process.
36. As required by the legislation and guidance the Council considered whether repaying the discount would lead to demonstrable personal hardship. It considered both the facts justifying a move and whether a move could take place without waiving the repayable discount.
37. The Council considered the evidence the family had provided and did not dispute Mr Y’s medical conditions. However it was not satisfied it could establish Mr Y’s medical conditions were exacerbated by, or that his health had deteriorated as a consequence of, anti-social behaviour or harassment from his neighbours. Without evidence of the anti-social behaviour/ harassment the Council was not satisfied a move was justified. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision.
38. The Council also considered the financial implications of a move and was satisfied Mr Y could afford to repay the discount and purchase a property from the proceeds of sale. Miss X disagrees with this decision, but there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this issue.

Back to top

Decision

39. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman