Summary: Miss X complains about the advice given to her by the Council during the Right to Buy process. She says the Council told her that it would not carry out repairs to the property while the Right to Buy process was underway. Therefore, she postponed buying the property to complete the repairs. Once these repairs were complete, she discovered the discount had been lowered and the advice provided by the Council was incorrect. She therefore says she has lost out on a discount of around £60,000. We found the Council at fault. It has provided wrong and inconsistent information. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payment to recognise the injustice to Miss X and make a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the advice given to her by the Council during the Right to Buy (RTB) process. She says the Council told her it would not carry out repairs to the property whilst the RTB process was underway.
2. Therefore, she postponed buying the property until the repairs were complete. Once these repairs were complete, she discovered the discount had been lowered and the advice provided by the Council was incorrect. As the property remained a leasehold property, the Council remained responsible for the roof. She therefore says she has lost out on a discount of around £60,000.
3. As a resolution to the complaint, Miss X has requested for the Council to reinstate her original RTB application from 2023 with the discount applicable at the time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. There are elements of the complaint which are about events which occurred in 2023 and would normally be outside our jurisdiction. I have decided however to exercise our discretion to consider these matters. This is because Miss X only discovered the alleged fault in 2025 and immediately raised her concerns to the Council about this. It is therefore fair to consider these matters overall.
9. Miss X has also raised concerns about the Council’s actions towards the repairs at the property. However, as this is about the actions of the Council in its role as landlord, this would fall under the remit of the Housing Ombudsman Service. I have however referred to the repairs in relation to the RTB process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making the final decision.
11. I have also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below. In addition, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

12. Under the Government’s Right to Buy scheme, a secure Council tenant can buy their home, if they meet qualifying criteria, at a lower price than the full market value. A discount is calculated based on the length of time they have been a tenant. The law governing the Right to Buy scheme is in the Housing Act 1985.
13. The Government has produced guidance for RTB applicants called ‘Your right to buy your home: a guide’. This guidance states: ‘It is worth noting that once a Right to Buy application has been submitted there may be certain repairs and maintenance work that a landlord does not need to carry out anymore, as the value is based on the condition of the property on the date of the application.’

What happened

14. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.
15. In June 2023, Miss X applied under the RTB scheme. In August 2023 Miss X received a letter from the Council which told her that while the RTB application was underway, no further repairs will be carried out to the property.
16. In October 2023 the Council sent a valuation letter. This showed the discount to be 100% which at the time equated to £96,000. In November 2023 Miss X disputed the valuation of the property compared to others in her local area. The Council provided advice on how to dispute the valuation.
17. In December 2023 Miss X confirms a leak developed in the roof of the property. She reports she contacted the Council about this issue, and it told her that it could not complete the repairs, as the RTB process was ongoing.
18. Miss X says that she felt pressured therefore to cancel the RTB application. Once she did, the Council confirmed that she had been placed back on to the maintenance list.
19. After the repairs were completed by the Council in 2025, Miss X again applied to purchase the property under the RTB scheme. The Council sent a valuation letter in 2025 which showed the discount again to be 100% but this now came to £38,000.
20. Miss X made a complaint about the time it took the Council to complete the repairs at the property and the advice given. In its stage two response to the complaint, the Council reported that it is legally bound to apply the discount that is in place at the time of the application. It does not have discretion to apply retrospective discounts, even where a delay was influenced by genuine repair concerns.
21. The Council also reported to Miss X that ‘regarding the outstanding repairs you reference: I can confirm that all repairs reported prior to the submission of your Right to Buy application are being progressed and will not incur charges. Any non-emergency repairs reported after the application date are assessed in line with Right to Buy guidance.’

Analysis

22. The guidance from the Government makes it clear that during the RTB process, certain (unstated) repairs are allowed to take place. From reviewing the correspondence from the Council, there has been an inconsistent approach to the information shared about this.
23. For example, in a letter addressed to Miss X in August 2023 the Council wrote ‘Please be aware that, whilst you have a Right to Buy application in process, no further repairs will be carried out to your home’. This advice is contrary to the guidance provided by the Government. I therefore consider this to be fault by the Council.
24. However, in the valuation letter it sent after this in October 2023, the Council wrote: ‘No further day to day repairs will be undertaken by the Council unless you decide not to proceed with the purchase. However, the Council will still undertake emergency repairs such as burst water tanks or electricity failure etc until the sale has been completed’.
25. In December 2023 when the issue with the roof first occurred, Miss X reports the Council told her verbally that it would not carry out the repairs while the RTB process was continuing.
26. Although it is difficult to prove what was discussed verbally, Miss X’s actions support her version of events. She immediately withdrew her application, and the Council told her that she had been placed back on to the maintenance list. She then logged the issue with the roof. Again, I consider the wrong advice provided to Miss X to be fault by the Council.
27. Miss X states in 2025 when she started the RTB process again, she discovered the Council would remain the leaseholder after her purchase of the property. Therefore, it also remained responsible for the roof repairs. Miss X says the Council should have told her about this at the time, to allow her to make an informed decision.
28. I note that Miss X links this fault to the loss of discount she experienced. However, there are several issues to consider about this.
29. First, the decision to amend the amount of discount, was by the Government and not the Council. The Government announced this in its budget in October 2024. The change then came into effect in the following month (November 2024). This was almost a year after Miss X withdrew her application.
30. Another reason to consider is the valuation letter sent in October 2023. It makes clear the condition of the property has been considered. The letter states that Miss X could use a surveyor to conduct a full structural review of the property. Miss X could have therefore used this to dispute the valuation of the property if it was found that additional works were required.
31. However, it is also worth noting that as part of the RTB process, it allows the Council to reclaim costs for repairs carried out at the property as part of this process. I note that when the RTB process was completed in 2026, the Council did not pass on the costs of the repairs to Miss X.
32. The guidance from the Government also states that a conveyancer should be employed when buying the property, to advise on searches, land register details and deeds. This could have alerted Miss X to the leasehold status, and the Council’s ongoing responsibilities with the condition of the property.
33. There are therefore mitigating circumstances which mean I cannot conclude the advice the Council provided, directly led to the loss of discount in the RTB process.
34. The fault therefore falls to the distress caused to Miss X when she learnt about the misinformation and reduced discount in 2025. I consider this would have caused her some distress in her belief the Council’s actions contributed to her losing out on the discount. Also, the uncertainty this issue caused her by the inconsistent advice provided. I therefore consider the Council should provide Miss X with an apology and an award in consideration of the injustice caused.
35. I note the Council has provided an award previously to Miss X however this was about the way that it handled the repairs issues at the property. The award I have made is separate and in addition to this.
36. I also find the Council should provide guidance to its staff. As this issue has highlighted an inconsistent approach to the information provided to RTB consumers. The Council should therefore provide guidance to staff that certain repairs can be reported and actioned during the RTB process.

Back to top

Action

37. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide an apology to Miss X for the unnecessary and avoidable distress caused by the misinformation provided during the Right to Buy process.
2. Pay Miss X a further £200 for the unnecessary and avoidable distress caused by its misinformation provided during the Right to Buy process.
38. Within three months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide guidance to staff that certain repairs can be reported and actioned during the Right to Buy buying process.
39. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. I find fault causing injustice. The Council should apologise to Miss X, take action and provide a payment to her in recognition of the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman