Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay and the valuation of Mr X’s home in the ‘right to buy’ process. Mr X could reasonably have taken any dispute about the valuation to the District Valuer. The Council’s apology for the delays is enough remedy for that point.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council delayed his right to buy his home by several months. He also complains that the Council valued the property at a much higher price than it had been previously valued at, and out of line with the local market. He wants the Ombudsman to review the valuation and process.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The District Valuer (part of HMRC) decides any dispute over Right to Buy valuations subject to time limits.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council accepts that it delayed processing Mr X’s ‘right to buy’ application. It explained this was due to an influx of applications at the same time, following the government’s October 2024 announcement of upcoming changes to ‘right to buy’ rules.
7. There is a strict procedure with time limits for each stage of the ‘right to buy’ process. The law expressly provides applicants with the means to issue a ‘Notice of Delay’ if they consider the Council is delaying the sale. Mr X issued a ‘Notice of Delay’, which means any rent he paid to the Council while the Notice was active will be deducted from the final sale price. The Council has also apologised for the delay. An investigation is unlikely to achieve significantly more than that for Mr X.
8. Applicants can challenge a valuation by going to the District Valuer within three months for an independent valuation. (Housing Act 1985, section 128). The time limits for the right to buy process are paused whilst the District Valuer does their valuation. The Council informed Mr X of his right to go to the District Valuer.
9. The District Valuer has the expertise to resolve disagreements about a valuation and has the power to make a binding decision. The Ombudsman does not have this expertise or power. As Mr X disputed the valuation and was informed of this right, I consider it reasonable to expect Mr X to have used that right. Mr X says he had to act quickly to avoid losing his discount, so had no realistic chance to challenge the valuation. However, as explained above, there was no such time pressure as the law allows the District Valuer and the applicant time to deal with a dispute about valuation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable to expect him to challenge the valuation with the District Valuer, and an investigation into the delays is unlikely to achieve a significantly different outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman