Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a right to buy application, and the subsequent complaint process. There is insufficient evidence of fault, and the Council has taken appropriate action to address delay in the complaint process.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council handled her right to buy (RtB) application unfairly. She says she followed verbal guidance given at the verification meeting and submitted her documents in good faith, yet her application was later rejected without proper support or clear instructions.
2. In addition, Mrs X says the complaint process was delayed significantly beyond the response timeframe.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council, as well as the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy her RtB application was refused. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and our role is not to decide whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the RtB application, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• we are unlikely to be able to establish whether Mrs X was given incorrect information at the verification meeting about the time period the proof of residency documents should cover.
• I understand applicants were given examples of acceptable supporting documents at the verification meeting.
• Mrs X was given an opportunity at the verification meeting to go through her application with a RtB officer. The Council has provided a copy of a ‘RTB verification form’ signed by Mrs X, which has handwritten notes stating ‘Nov 2023 – Oct 2024 – Please upload by noon 07/02/25’.
• the presentation shown at the verification meeting highlights all documents and correspondence will be uploaded to its portal, and applicants should check this regularly for updates. The Council requested proof of residency information from Mrs X via the portal on 20 February 2025. The request gave examples of suitable supporting documents, the time period they needed to cover, and a deadline for their submission.
• I have seen no evidence to suggest Mrs X contacted the Council for clarification about the 20 February request.
8. The Council has apologised for the delay in issuing its Stage 2 complaint response. That was an appropriate way to address this part of the complaint, so the Ombudsman will not pursue it further.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the handling of the RtB application, and the Council’s apology was an appropriate way to address the delay in the Stage 2 complaint response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman