Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay during a ‘right to buy’ application. Mr X could reasonably have taken court action.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council delayed in the early stages of his application to buy his home from the Council. He says this resulted in him having to apply for a new mortgage which has affected his credit file.
2. Mr X wants the Council to compensate him for the stress and financial disruption caused to him. He would like the Council to cover the cost of his solicitor’s fees.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. As summarised above, Mr X complains about delays by the Council when he applied to buy his home under the ‘right to buy’ process’. He says this caused him stress and financial disruption as he was forced to apply for a new mortgage. He would like to be compensated.
8. The Council admits some delays caused by staffing issues but says other delays were caused by another party’s solicitor’s not responding promptly. It has apologised to Mr X but not provided compensation. It has instead pointed to Mr X’s potential remedy in court under the statutory redress procedure for right to buy applicants.

9. We will not investigate. The county court could have considered Mr X’s arguments that he suffered financial disruption arising from delay by the Council. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving such disputes, we normally expect applicants to use it. On an important matter such as buying a home, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have taken this action especially since he was already legally represented. Additionally, Mr X’s argument about being financially disadvantaged is a claim of economic or consequential loss. Such matters are not straightforward and are more appropriately for the courts than for the Ombudsman.
10. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right to go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as it was reasonable to expect him to have taken court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman