Summary: There was no fault in how the Council decided on the purchase price or process for buying a property on the open market to meet the needs of Miss X and her family.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council avoidably delayed identifying and securing a suitable property to buy to meet the family’s needs by:
1. Setting the maximum purchase price too low
2. Requiring a valuation and survey before making an offer, losing out on properties to other buyers who made offers sooner
3. Insisting she agree to proposed adaptation works before it would make an offer despite those works not meeting the family’s needs
2. As a result, Miss X says she and her family have remained in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary and have experienced significant and avoidable distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
8. Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. There is a long and complex history to this complaint. I have not set it out here beyond the information necessary to understand my findings.
10. Miss X is a tenant of the Council. Her eldest child, Miss Y, is Disabled. Miss Y uses a wheelchair and has care and support needs. Their current home cannot be adapted to meet Miss Y's needs, identified by an Occupational Therapist (OT) from the County Council.
11. The Council identified that it had no properties within its housing stock that it could adapt to meet Miss Y's needs. In October 2023, it decided to look for a property on the open market.

Purchase price

12. Miss X says the purchase price the Council set is too low, and this meant it has taken longer to find a suitable property.
13. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained how it decided on the purchase price. It has a scheme where it identifies "high value" vacant properties owned by the Council. If those properties are worth one and half times more than the average for that property type in the area, the Council considers selling the property, using the proceeds to buy two new properties to add to its housing stock. It used the same approach, of one and half times the average value, to decide on a purchase price. It would also consider properties up to £50,000 more if it was suitable or represented good value. It identified 18 properties within this price range between October 2023 and Summer 2024, when it had an offer accepted on a property.

Purchase price - findings

14. The Council does not have a specific policy for buying properties on the open market. This is unsurprising given how unusual it is for it do so. It therefore applied the closest relevant policy, its "high value" property scheme. This makes good sense and was not fault. It was more generous than had it limited consideration to the average for the area. Importantly, the Council also kept discretion to consider more expensive properties.
15. For a purchase of this size, the Council needed, and got, approval from its Cabinet. This is the appropriate body to consider how much the Council should spend. There is no fault in the way the Council made its decisions. I cannot, therefore, question the outcome.

Offer process

16. Miss X says the Council's approach of requiring a valuation and survey before it would make an offer on a property meant it lost out on properties to other buyers.
17. The Council says it is the established practice of its estates team to get a valuation and survey before making any offers. It says this is to ensure its purchases are sound financial decisions. It also says doing such checks up front reduces any reputational damage to the Council in withdrawing from purchases.

Offer process – findings

18. As a public body, the Council has a duty to spend public money carefully and make sure it gets best value. Getting a valuation and survey before making an offer ensures it is doing so. Not only because it provides evidence the proposed purchase is sound. But also in ensuring Council time and resources are not avoidably wasted pursuing purchases which then have to be abandoned if later checks are unfavourable.
19. There is no fault by the Council in its approach.

Agreement before offer

20. When it identified a suitable property, the Council got a valuation and survey. If these were positive, an officer from its adaptations service visited the property again. The Council then produced sketch plans of the adaptations it considered would meet Miss Y's needs in the property. It shared these with the OT at the County Council and with Miss X.
21. The Council asked Miss X to agree to the proposed plans before it would proceed with the purchase.
22. Miss X says this was unfair. She says it meant she felt pressured to agree to proposed adaptations that would not meet Miss Y's needs in order not to lose out on a property.

Agreement before offer – findings

23. The Council has to protect its investment. In the circumstances, where it is committing substantial resources, it is reasonable for it to seek a commitment from Miss X before proceeding. This ensures it is not wasting its money on a property that Miss X will not then accept. It is appropriate for the Council to rely on the advice of the OT that its proposed works would meet Miss Y's needs. (The OT's actions, for the County Council, are the subject of a separate complaint.)
24. I understand why Miss X felt this put her in an unfair position. She agreed a property was appropriate but not that the proposed adaptations were suitable. However, the Council's proposed works were not final, as more recent events have shown. Having further visited the property with Miss X and Miss Y and an OT, and considered the requirements of planning, the Council has proposed two different schemes of works for Miss X to choose from, both of which an OT considers meet Miss Y's needs.
25. Overall, therefore, I do not find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman