Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about decisions the Council made on Miss X’s right to buy application. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating and it is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the alternative court remedy available to her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council said she did not submit her right to buy (RTB) application in full before the law changed, reducing the maximum discount a person could be granted. This meant the discount Miss X was eligible for was less than she expected.
2. Miss X wants the Council to accept the application as being submitted before the law changing and provide the higher discount.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X submitted her RTB application a few days before the relevant law affecting the discount available changed. This change reduced the maximum discount buyers were allowed to be awarded by a Council.
8. The Council told Miss X her application was incomplete and asked her to submit missing information. The Council wrote to Miss X and set out the information which remained outstanding.
9. The Council said it did not receive Miss X’s completed application until after the law changed and therefore Miss X is not eligible for the higher discount amounts.
10. Because of this, Miss X was eligible for less discount than she originally believed. She said the Council should accept her application from the date she first submitted it and honour the discount she would have been eligible for prior to the law changing.
11. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from us investigating this complaint. Information about the law change was publicly and widely available. We could not direct the Council to act contrary to what the law says in terms of discount it should now apply. Additionally, we could not say on balance whether Miss X’s application would have been successful had she applied before the deadline and what the outcome of that would be.
12. Additionally, the County Court may consider any dispute about the RTB process, and this includes the size of discount allowed under Section 181 of the Housing Act. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving such disputes, we normally expect people to use it, with legal advice if necessary.
13. There might be some cost to court action, but that does not automatically make taking court action unreasonable. This is particularly the case in the context of the potential benefits to Miss X of being able to buy a valuable asset (her home) and being able to do so at a significantly larger discount than otherwise. Also, Miss X could ask the court for her costs if her court action succeeds. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the right to go to court.
14. Furthermore, we will not consider the Council’s handling of Miss X’s complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us and she could reasonably take court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman