Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a right to buy valuation as it is unlikely we could change the outcome of the complaint or achieve any further remedy for the complainant. We will not investigate the aspect of the complaint about data handling as this is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:

• acted negligently in overvaluing the property he was buying under the right to buy (RTB) scheme, which Mr X says caused the sale to be delayed by several months. Mr X says this meant he had to pay rent for these additional months, and caused him to lose his mortgage deal so had to borrow at a higher interest rate,
• made disproportionate data demands and failed to deal with that information securely, and
• failed to properly deal with his complaint.

2. Mr X says he had to spend many hours dealing with this and caused considerable stress.

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. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our further involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Under the Housing Act 1985, any dispute about the valuation/sale price of a RTB property is to be determined by the District Valuer (DV). Mr X made use of this process and obtained the outcome he sought, that is, a reduction in the valuation of the property. It would not be a good use of our limited resources therefore for us to investigate now how the Council came to its valuation. Additionally, the large part of the injustice Mr X claims essentially arose from the time taken for the revaluation to be done. As the Council said in its complaint response, this was out of its control.
9. For these reasons, we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint.
10. I recognise Mr X feels the Council’s demands for financial/residence information was disproportionate, but I do not consider this represents a level of injustice that would warrant our further involvement. Any concerns Mr X has about how the Council handled his data should be raised with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). It is the UK’s independent regulator in respect of data protection matters and is best placed to deal with this issue.
11. The Council offered Mr X a payment of £100 due to its delay in providing a response to his complaint. We will not investigate this aspect of the complaint as this is a reasonable remedy for any injustice caused by Council fault in this regard and we could not add to this.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we can change the outcome of his complaint or provide any further remedy for him. Any concerns about the Councils data handling processes should be made to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman