Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a right to buy application. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision to close the application and cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is looking for.

The complaint

1. Mrs X applied to buy her home from the Council under the ‘right to buy’ scheme and she complained the Council cancelled the application without accepting it because it did not receive specific documents in time. Mrs X said the Council cancelled her application without giving her the appropriate warnings, according to the law. Mrs X also complains the Council ignored her rights under the Equality Act 2010 by failing to make reasonable adjustments for her disability.
2. Mrs X says this has caused her stress and wants the Council to reinstate her right to buy application without her having to start the process again.

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.

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

4. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complained the Council did not issue her with first and final notices to complete the purchase, under sections 140 and 141 of the Housing Act 1985. However, these notices are only applicable once the Council has agreed to sell the property to the tenant. In this case, the application had not progressed that far, so it would have been inappropriate for the Council to issue those notices to Mrs X before cancelling the application.
8. The Council has a duty to do due diligence checks ahead of accepting an offer. Council’s also have a duty to accept or deny an offer within statutory timescales. The Council explained to Mrs X it cancelled the application because it did not receive specific documents from her in time for it to do its checks. Given the Council’s explanations here, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for deciding to cancel an offer because it didn’t receive the necessary documents in time.
9. In any case we cannot direct the Council to re-instate Mrs X’s application and so cannot achieve what she is looking for.
10. It is not proportionate for us to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about discrimination by the Council. This is because we cannot decide whether the Council has breached the Equality Act 2010, and we are not investigating the substantive issue. I see no reason, in this case, why it would be unreasonable to expect Ms X to take court action if she wants a definitive ruling on this point.
11. I have not seen any evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mrs X’s circumstances as to her stated disability in how it communicated with her.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint we are unlikely to find fault with the Council, and because we cannot achieve what Mrs X is looking for.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman