Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council cancelling a ‘right to buy’ application. Miss X has an alternative legal remedy, and it is reasonable to expect her to take the Council to court.

The complaint

1. Miss X’s representative, Mr Y complains the Council acted unreasonably when it cancelled her Right to Buy (RTB) application because her documents were not submitted on time.
2. Mr Y believes the Council is at fault for rigidly applying its policy and not giving Miss X more support with the process because English is not her first language. He says the Council’s failure has resulted in Miss X losing a significant discount and leaving her unable to proceed with the purchase of her council home which has resulted in significant distress. He wants the Council to reinstate the original application and restore the discount.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. The law allows the county court to decide any dispute about Right to Buy application under section 181 of the Housing Act 1985, s181. The court can decide whether the Council acted correctly and make a binding order.
8. Mr Y disputes the Council’s decision to cancel Miss X’s application, including arguments about fairness, procedural handling, and the impact of the decision. These are matters that a court is better placed to consider. The court can make a binding decision on whether the Council acted lawfully and whether the application should be reinstated on its original terms.
9. While Mr Y argues the Council failed to apply flexibility or properly consider Miss X’s circumstances, including language barriers, this does not remove the availability of the legal remedy. The court process is specifically designed to resolve disputes of this nature.
10. There might be some cost to court action, but that does not automatically make taking court action unreasonable, particularly in the context of a transaction for a valuable asset such as Miss X's home. 
11. In addition, we could not require the Council to reinstate the Right to Buy application with the original discount in the way requested. Only the court has the authority to make such decisions in these circumstances.
12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the complaint centres on the Council’s decision to cancel the RTB application and refuse reinstatement. These are matters the court is best placed to decide and we consider it is reasonable for the Miss X to use the court remedy available to her.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is an alternative legal remedy and it is reasonable to expect Miss X to take court action to resolve the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman