Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delays while considering his Right to Buy application. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used the court remedy available. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome requested.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the time taken by the Council to complete his Right to Buy (RTB) application.
2. Mr X says the purchase took almost 23 months to complete and alleges the Council failed to meet statutory timescales, relied on an inflated property valuation, caused avoidable delays through the District Valuer process, and delayed conveyancing.
3. Mr X seeks compensation and a reduction/waiver of the repayment provision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Housing Act 1985 contains a delay procedure which allows tenants to serve delay notices and, where the authority is responsible for delay, obtain a reduction in the purchase price.
10. If a Council still does not act on notices of delay, a tenant may take their dispute to the county court, under section 181 of the Act. This section of the Housing Act makes provision for an applicant to ask the court to decide any issue arising during their application to purchase.
11. Where an RTB applicant disagrees with the valuation included in the Council's Section 125 Offer Notice, the process provides a specific mechanism for resolving that dispute. The applicant may require the matter to be referred to the District Valuer, who is an independent valuation authority. The Council has no authority over the District Valuer's determination and must apply the valuation once it has been issued. Any time taken by the District Valuer to reach a determination falls outside the Council's control.
12. The Council has considered Mr X’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process. The Council acknowledged its delays in issuing the Section 125 Offer Notice. It says a deduction of £1,011.46 was applied to the purchase price under the Right to Buy delay provisions. The Council also said it was not obliged to accept an applicant's private valuation, and that conveyancing delays arose in part from enquiries raised by the complainant’s solicitors. The Council concluded that no further compensation or remedy was warranted.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have made use of the court remedy available to him under the RTB procedure. This includes taking the matter to the county court if he was dissatisfied with the Council’s deduction off the purchase price.
14. Further, we have no powers to compel the Council to reduce or waive the legal provisions governing the discount repayment period. The conveyancing process progressed to completion and the deduction off the purchase price was accepted. We cannot achieve the outcome requested.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have used the legal remedy available. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome requested.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman