Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss Y’s council house right to buy application. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already carried out, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Additionally, we cannot achieve the outcomes Miss Y wants.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council agreed her council house right to buy application and then rescinded its agreement some months later.
2. Miss Y said this caused distress and uncertainty.
3. Miss Y wants the Council to exercise its discretion to allow her right to buy application to continue and increase the symbolic financial remedy it has offered to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss Y.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss Y submitted her council house right to buy application in 2024. In 2025, the Council issued a Section 125 Notice to Miss Y confirming she had the right to buy her home. However, later in 2025, the Council rescinded this.
8. The Council told Miss Y the Section 125 Notice had been issued in error. It explained Miss Y had not been a tenant for three years at the point of her application and so did not meet the legal criteria to have the right to buy her home.
9. When considering Miss Y’s complaint, the Council made several findings;

• acknowledged inaccurate information was shared with Miss Y about her application by council officers.
• confirmed it had considered exercising its discretion to allow her application to continue but had decided against it.
• apologized to Miss Y and took learning from her complaint.
• offered Miss Y a symbolic financial remedy totaling £500 in recognition of her experience.
• offered to reimburse Miss Y for any legal costs she may have incurred whilst she believed the application was proceeding towards completion.

10. We will not investigate this complaint. We could not add to the investigation the Council has already done, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. Also, we cannot achieve the outcomes that Miss Y wants. We cannot instruct the Council to allow Miss Y’s application to proceed. The Council is not obligated to do this and has shown that it considered exercising discretion but decided against it.
12. Additionally, the symbolic financial remedy the Council has offered to Miss Y is broadly in line with our guidance on remedies. On this basis, we could not direct the Council to increase its offer to Miss Y.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation the Council has already done, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcomes Miss Y wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman