Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s application to buy his Council home as the Council is not directly responsible for Mr X’s lease only having 11 years remaining. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X complains the Council acted negligently when selling a leasehold property to him. He says he has been left with a defective lease with only 11 years remaining.
2. Mr X wants the Council to take remedial action or pay compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any fault has not directly caused injustice to the person who complained, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has investigated Mr X’s complaint. It says its records show that the Council forewarned Mr X about the lease issues and it was his choice to go ahead with the purchase. It says it can evidence this as Mr X signed to confirm he was accepting the lease extension risks.
7. However, the Council admits it made an error in its lease documentation sent to Mr X’s conveyancer. It found the lease terms of 99 years were recorded from 1974 instead of the correct year: 1937. The Council also apologised for its delays in completing the complaints procedure for which it offered Mr X a financial remedy of £100.
8. Overall, the Council does not consider it caused Mr X injustice as it says he was aware of the need for a lease extension. And also Mr X’s conveyancer failed to exercise their duty of care to Mr X by picking up this error in the property purchase paperwork.
9. We will not investigate. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. It was Mr X’s responsibility, as someone undertaking a leasehold property purchase, to ensure he understood all the possible ramifications including with his conveyancing solicitors as necessary. His solicitors had their own responsibility to have oversight and it may be that Mr X can pursue this with them. We cannot reasonably hold the Council directly responsible for Mr X’s current predicament.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman