Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a “right to buy” application. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right to go to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his application to buy his home under the “right to buy.” He alleged faults including the Council: acting unlawfully; wrongly cancelling two applications; not acting on information he supplied; communicating inadequately; and not telling him when it reinstated his application. Mr X says this resulted in him losing part of his “right to buy” discount and incurring other costs. He wants his full previous discount reinstated and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The law allows the county court to decide any dispute about the 'right to buy' (except for disputes about the valuation of property, not relevant to this complaint). (Housing Act 1985, section 181) So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s application. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving such disputes, we normally expect applicants to use it, with legal advice if necessary. Given the significance of buying a home, it is reasonable to expect people to inform themselves of their rights.
6. I am not clear if Mr X has completed buying his home from the Council. If he has not completed the purchase, he still has the right to take court action. There might be some cost to court action, but that alone does not automatically make taking court action unreasonable, particularly in the context of a transaction for a valuable asset such as Mr X's home. The court could also make a binding order if it saw fit, which the Ombudsman could not. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use the right to go to court.
7. If Mr X has already completed buying his home, he might no longer have the right to go to the county court. Even if that is the case, I consider it would have been reasonable to expect him to use his right to go to court when he had it, for the reasons given in the final three sentences of the previous paragraph.
8. Mr X alleges the Council’s fault caused him various losses (he told the Council those were between £7,000 and £12,000), for which he wants compensation. The courts can consider compensation claims, so the restriction in paragraph 2 also applies to this point. It is not our role to award compensation. It is more appropriate for the courts to consider liability, damages and compensation, which are not necessarily straightforward matters legally.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to use, or to have used, his right to take court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman