Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling and eventual refusal of the complainant’s Right to Buy application. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used the statutory notice of delay procedure, and to take the Council to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about poor communication and case handling during the Right to Buy (RtB) process, which he says caused a 4½-month delay and led to the refusal of his application. In particular, Mr X says the Council’s identification verification requirements were rigid and inflexible.

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. 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 Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is a strict procedure with time limits for each stage of the RtB process. The procedure also provides for an applicant to serve a ‘notice of delay’ on the Council if they consider it is delaying the sale.
6. The Council must either move along the sale or send a counter notice to the tenant explaining what action it has taken or explain why it cannot progress the sale. If the Council does not reply within a month the tenant can complete a ‘operative notice of delay’ form. Any rent the tenant pays while waiting for the Council’s response can be taken off the sale price.
7. If a Council still does not act on notices of delay, a tenant may take their dispute to the County Court, under section 181 of the Housing Act. This makes provision for an applicant to ask the Court to decide any issue/disputes arising during their application to purchase. The Council would have the chance to put forward a defence, and the Court could decide the matter.
8. The law expressly provides this route for RtB disputes. The court can, if it sees fit, overturn the Council’s decision and make a binding order, which is something the Ombudsman could not do.
9. I therefore find it reasonable for Mr X to have used the notice of delay process and, if necessary, to have gone to court, to address any delays in the purchase of the property. I also consider it reasonable to expect him to use this court remedy if he disagrees with the Council’s reasons for refusing his application.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have used the notice of delay procedure, and the alternative court remedy available to him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman