Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s right to buy application. This is primarily because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to use, or have used, the alternative court remedy which is available. An investigation is also unlikely to achieve much more than the apology and financial remedy previously offered by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her right to buy (RtB) application. In particular, she says the Council misplaced document she submitted, and has used the incorrect application date.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• 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.

(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 Ms X, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint for the following reasons.
7. There is a strict procedure with time limits for each stage of the RtB process. The procedure provides for an applicant to serve a ‘notice of delay’ on the Council if they consider it is delaying the sale.
8. The Council must either move along the sale or send a counter notice to the tenant explaining what action it has taken or explain why it cannot progress the sale. If the Council does not reply within a month, the tenant can complete a ‘operative notice of delay’ form. Any rent the tenant pays while waiting for the Council’s response can be taken off the sale price.
9. If a Council still does not act on notices of delay, a tenant may take their dispute to the County Court, under section 181 of the Housing Act. This makes provision for an applicant to ask the court to decide any issue/disputes arising during their application to purchase.
10. As the law expressly provides this route for applicants to resolve disputes about delay, we normally expect people to use it. I consider it was reasonable for Ms X to have used the notice of delay process if she was unhappy with any delay in the progression of application.
11. Similarly, if Ms X disagrees with application date used by the Council, it is open to her to ask the County Court to also consider this matter. The court can make a binding order. I consider it reasonable to expect Ms X to use this alternative court remedy to resolve this part of the complaint too.
12. The Council has also already apologised for misplacing documents Ms X submitted during the application process, and has offered £50 as a token of good will. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve much more for Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to use, or have used, the court remedy which is available to her. We are also unlikely to achieve much more than the apology and financial remedy already offered by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman