Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Right to Buy (RTB) application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, in how the Council made its decision, to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council wrongly denied her Right to Buy application. She said this happened because she did not submit the requirement documents on time, but she believes the Council did not provide clear written instructions or deadlines. Miss X also complained about delays in communication which she says caused her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A national policy was announced which reduced the maximum discount for Right to Buy applicants. Eligible applicants had until midnight on 20 November 2024 to apply to not be impacted by the change.
6. On 20 November 2024, the Council received Miss X’s RTB application. The application form stated the types of documents it required for a successful application, and the Council explained these again during a verification meeting it arranged the following month. At that point, Miss X still had time to provide the outstanding documents.
7. However, Miss X did not subsequently provide the required documents within the timeframe set out in the RTB process and the extended deadline the Council laid on. Miss X said the Council should have given her a written deadline or reminders.
8. The Council explained it received an exceptionally high number of applications following a national change to RTB discounts, which affected its response times. The Council advised Miss X to use her online account for updates, but she did not do so. The Council extended the deadlines to allow time to consider the applications but said Miss X did not provide the required documents for all applicants. Therefore, we will not investigate because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions to refuse her application.
9. Since Miss X’s application, there has been a statutory change reducing the maximum discount for Right to Buy applications. Miss X is seeking a restoration of the higher discount that was available to her at the time of the application.
10. The outcome Miss X is seeking is not achievable as we could not direct the Council to act contrary to what the law says in terms of discount it should now apply.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough fault, in how the Council made its decision, to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman