Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a right to buy discount as the complainant can seek his remedy in court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision on his entitlement to a right to buy (RTB) discount. Mr X considers the Council should allow him the much larger discount which he was eligible for before a change in the law. Mr X also complains that at the conclusion of his complaint, the Council signposted him to the wrong ombudsman service.

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.
3. 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)
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (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 the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says he was unable to submit his RTB application by hand on the evening of 24th November 2024 as he says the Council offices were closed and there was nowhere he could leave it. Mr X handed his application in the following day.
8. The law changed on the 25 November 2024 in that a reduction in the maximum RTB discount was brought in. As the Council considered Mr X had not submitted his application in time, it decided he was not eligible for the significantly higher discount he would have been prior to the law change.
9. Mr X is unhappy about this and complains the Council signposted him to the wrong ombudsman at the conclusion of his complaint.
10. Section 181 of the Housing Act 1985 provides a RTB applicant with the right to ask the County Court to determine any question arising under Part V of the Act (all the provisions relating to RTB). The restriction in paragraph three therefore applies to this complaint.
11. As the law expressly provides this route for resolving such disputes, we would normally expect RTB applicants to use it, with legal advice if necessary. There might be some cost to court action, but that alone does not automatically make taking such action unreasonable, particularly in the context of a house purchase. The court would provide a formal legal ruling on what discount Mr X is entitled to, which we are not empowered to do.
12. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used the right to go to court and we will not investigate.
13. We will not investigate the Council’s signposting as a separate matter as the Council’s final complaint response to Mr X, which he supplied to us, does include our details. It is therefore unlikely we will find fault by the Council in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to go to court and it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s signposting as a separate matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman