Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to tell his relative, Mrs Y, that her Right to Buy ended when her tenancy transferred from the Council to a housing association. This is because, given the time that has passed, we could not carry out a fair and meaningful investigation or reach a sound decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his relative, Mrs Y. He says the Council:
• failed to tell Mrs Y that she lost her Right to Buy when her tenancy transferred from Council housing to a housing association more than 30 years ago;
• failed to keep records showing whether it properly informed Mrs Y about the effect of the tenancy transfer; and
• mishandled his complaint and delayed its response.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions meant Mrs Y lost the opportunity to buy her home at a discounted price and secure long-term financial security. He wants us to investigate the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The substantive actions Mr X complains of are over 30 years old. This makes his complaint late. I have considered whether there are good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate it despite the delay. In my view, an investigation by us could not reach a sound, fair and meaningful decision because:
• The Council has destroyed records relating to the tenancy transfer. It was entitled to do this under its data retention policies given the time that has passed. We therefore could not determine what information was provided to Mrs Y at the time of the transfer or whether the Council acted properly;
• We could not apply current standards or guidance to events that happened over 30 years ago. It would therefore be more difficult to reach a fair and firm conclusion on whether the Council was at fault; and
• The circumstances have changed significantly since the events took place. The property has since been sold and Mrs Y has moved home. This reduces the likelihood that an investigation could achieve a meaningful outcome.
9. As it is unlikely we could carry out a fair investigation or reach a reliable conclusion, I will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.
10. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. As a public funded body, we must be careful about how we use our resources. As we are not investigating the substantive part of Mr X’s complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because given the time that has passed, we could not carry out a fair and meaningful investigation or reach a sound decision. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman