Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to re-investigate what took place in respect of Mr X’s right to buy purchase, as this is a matter for the court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to examine errors it admitted in 2010 connected to the earlier sale of his home to him, under right to buy (RTB) legislation. Mr X says he has been caused long term financial loss, uncertainty and stress. Mr X seeks compensation from the Council.

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))
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. Mr X bought his home from the Council under RTB legislation. In 2010, a Deed of Rectification was executed after Mr X says the Council admitted the lease and boundary plan were defective. Mr X says though that no new valuation was carried out and he received no compensation.
9. Mr X asked the Council to review the matter in 2026. The Council told Mr X it would not do so as it considered the matter time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. It also said the Deed of Rectification had a 12-year limitation so any claim to be brought under that was also out of time.
10. We will not investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault in the consideration of Mr X’s request for the matter to be re-examined. In the absence of such fault, we cannot question the actual decision by the Council not to reconsider the matter. In any case, as Mr X is essentially challenging the Council’s interpretation of the law, we could not assist as only a court could decide if the Council’s was correct in its legal interpretation.
11. Additionally, only the courts can make compensation awards.
12. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take his case to court, for the outcome he seeks and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s request and the legality of its decision would be for the court to determine.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman