Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s ‘right to buy’ application. This is because it was reasonable to expect Mrs X to appeal to the District Valuer about the Council’s valuation of her home.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s valuation of her home during the ‘right to buy’ process. She would like the Council to alter its valuation of her home from £270,000 to £190,000.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. If a Council tenant claims the right to buy their home, the Council offers a purchase price based on a valuation. The tenant has the right to ask the District Valuer to decide any disagreement about a property’s value. (Housing Act 1985, section 128)
7. The county court can decide any question about a ‘right to buy’ matter except the valuation points that are for the District Valuer. (Housing Act 1985, section 181)

8. Mrs X, a Council tenant, claimed the right to buy her home. Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s valuation under this process. She also complained about the Council failing to send her the s125 offer letter, in May 2025, as claimed by the Council.
9. We will not investigate. Mrs X had the right to challenge the valuation by going to the District Valuer within three months. The law expressly provides this route to resolve such points. The District Valuer has the expertise to resolve disagreements about value and has the power to make a binding decision the Council must follow. The Ombudsman does not have that expertise or power. Mrs X could reasonably have used her right to go to the District Valuer, so we will not investigate this point.
10. Mrs X also complains about not receiving the Council’s s125 offer letter in May 2025. The Council addressed this in its complaints response by reissuing the S125 in August 2025 as a remedy. It said it could not establish what happened in May 2025 as it had no control over the post. We will not investigate this element of her complaint as the Council has provided a suitable remedy by placing her back in the position she would have been had it not for the fault. We would not be able to achieve anything more. If Mrs X is claiming another injustice, she could apply to the county court to decide her points. The restriction in paragraph 3 therefore applies. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving such disputes, we normally expect tenants to use it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. Mrs X could have taken the valuation point to the District Valuer. It was reasonable to expect Mrs X to go to court if she was claiming an injustice arising from not receiving the s125 offer letter in May 2025.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman