Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel Mr X’s right to Buy application for his Council home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council cancelled his Right to Buy application because he failed to send completed documents about anti-money laundering within the required 12 weeks. He says he did not have a passport or driving licence and he had to use solicitors to certify his documents. He says the Council acted unreasonably and that having to re-apply will result in him losing discount and also rent which continues to be owed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council cancelled his Right to Buy application because it says he failed to return anti-money laundering documents within the required 12 weeks. He says that he has health issues and has no phot identification so had to use a solicitor to provide certified documents.
7. The Council says Mr X’s solicitors were aware of the timescale for replies and sent uncertified documents to an incorrect address after the 12 weeks for a default notice had expired. It issued a hand-delivered reminder during the 12-week period but the application was cancelled when the compliance date was exceeded.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. If Mr X wishes to challenge the Council’s interpretation of the Housing Act 1985 Right to Buy provisions and the Government guidance relevant to it he would need to seek a decision by the courts under judicial review. We cannot determine points of law and we cannot say the Council’s decision was unlawful.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel Mr X’s right to Buy application for his Council home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman