Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s offer to buy back his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the complainant could have gone to the District Valuer about part of his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of its offer to buy back a Council property which it previously sold to him. More specifically, he complains the Council:
1. initially rejected Mr X’s offer to buy back the property, only to later make an offer to buy it;
2. reduced its initial offer to buy by £5,000;
3. failed to complete the sale in a timely manner; and,
4. relied on a £500 retention to charge him for the removal of white goods left in the property after moving out.
2. Mr X wants the Council to:

• reimburse him the cost of the estate agent commission, which he would not have had to pay if the Council accepted his original offer to buy back the property; and
• compensate him for the £5,000 reduction in the final sale price, which he felt compelled to accept due to the delays and imminent increase in stamp duty.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. Mr X asked the Council to consider buying back his home which he bought under the Right to Buy scheme. The Right of First Refusal is a provision in the law to allow owners to offer the Council to buy back their home before offering it on the open market.
8. The Council initially refused the offer because its buying programme, which would have allowed it to make an offer, was on hold. It was for the Council to decide whether it had the resources to make an offer. The Council explained its reasons clearly to Mr X as to why it rejected the offer. Also, the Council explained that, although it did not send the formal rejection notice within eight weeks of Mr X’s offer, the law allowed Mr X to proceed with the sale on the open market in these circumstances. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the original rejection to justify investigating.
9. A month after rejecting Mr X’s offer, a different buying programme resumed, meaning the Council was able to make an offer. It did so through Mr X’s agent. In its complaint responses, the Council gave Mr X clear reasons why it was subsequently able to make this offer. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
10. The Council’s first offer was subject to an independent valuation of the property. The Council reduced its offer by £5,000 based on the valuation. Mr X could have taken advice on the Council’s offer if he was concerned about it. He had the right to go to the District Valuer for an independent decision on the value the Council should pay if it wanted to buy the property back. 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. For the reasons given, I consider that would have been the appropriate action to take to resolve this dispute. Also, the Council has pointed out Mr X was not obliged to sell the property to the Council if he was unhappy with the Council’s offer.
11. Following the Council’s reduced offer, it took approximately six months to complete the sale. The Council explained to Mr X there were delays in the conveyancing process as leasehold transactions were more complex and more enquiries were needed to complete, which could take up to six months. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council did not unduly delay during this part of the process and provided clear reasons why it took as long as it did. Further, certain matters outside of the Council’s control contributed to the time taken to complete. This included a four-month period during which the Council was chasing Mr X’s solicitor for necessary details so that it could complete the sale. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council relied on a £500 retention to charge him for the removal of white goods left in the property. The Council’s offer letter stated all items should be removed. It contacted Mr X’s solicitors to explain Mr X would incur removal charges if the white goods were removed. After the sale, it contacted his agent and solicitors several times to request removal of the items, but the offers were declined. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s offer to buy back his property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the complainant could have gone to the District Valuer about part of his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman