Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s Right to Buy application. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to use the alternative court remedy and, in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her Right to Buy (RtB) application, particularly its poor communication, which resulted in her application being withdrawn.

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. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law also 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 Ms X’s representative and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The restriction detailed in paragraph 4 above applies to Ms X’s complaint. This is because the law allows the county court to decide any dispute about the RtB process (Housing Act 1985, section 181). Ms X can therefore ask the court to decide if there are grounds for her original RtB application to be reinstated. The court can make a binding order.
8. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving RtB disputes, we normally expect applicants to use it, with legal advice if necessary. There might be some cost to court action, but that does not automatically make taking court action unreasonable, particularly in the context of a transaction for a valuable asset such as their home. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Ms X to use her right to go to court.
9. And even if this restriction did not apply to Ms X’s complaint, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• we cannot hold the Council responsible for any errors by Royal Mail in delivering the letters/documents the Council sent on 7 February 2025, which detailed the information Ms X needed to submit to support her application.
• the Council sent a refusal notice to Ms X on 14 March, stating that documentation remained outstanding, and allowing a further 28 days (until 11 April 2025) for this to be provided.
• email correspondence from the Council on 18 March 2025:
• listed the documents which needed to be provided and the deadline for submission.
• confirmed a tenancy disclaimer needed to signed and verified by a solicitor.
• explained who Ms X should contact about court costs which remained on her rent account.
• the Council was entitled to withdraw/cancel the application when no documents had been received by the 11 April 2025 statutory deadline.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to use the alternative court remedy and, in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman