Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s right to buy application. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating and it was reasonable to expect Mr X to use the alternative court remedy available to him.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X complains about the Council not visiting him before issuing him with a valuation, which he says inflated the value. He also complains about the Council’s delay which he says has caused him stress and financial hardship.
2. Mr X would like the Council to fix the outstanding issues in his property or provide financial compensation.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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 says the Council’s handling of his Right to Buy (RTB) application has been marked by significant delays causing him stress and financial hardship.

8. The Council’s complaints responses to Mr X did not uphold his concerns. The Council wrote there was no obligation on it to visit Mr X’s home before carrying out its valuation. It said arranging a home visit would have delayed the application progressing further due to the volume of applications it was receiving. It also said that it was Mr X’s decision to appeal to the District Valuer’s service. And that the service pre-warned him he would have a 3 month wait due to its workloads.
9. Mr X highlights that the Council delayed in referring his case to the District Valuer. He also says the Council has delayed in completing his application after receiving the District Valuer’s decision. Because of this, Mr X believes he has lost out by having to pay rent longer than he should have done which he says has drained his savings.
10. We will not investigate. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable from us investigating this complaint. The Council is allowed to carry out desk top valuations. And we could not say on balance whether a home inspection would have resulted in a lower valuation.
11. Additionally, the County Court may consider any dispute about the RTB process, including delays and compensation for financial losses. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving such disputes, we normally expect people to use it, with legal advice if necessary. For these reasons, it was reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us and he could have reasonably have taken action in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman