Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened during the Council’s ‘buy back’ of Miss X’s leasehold property due to a regeneration project. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has already offered a suitable financial remedy for the delays and uncertainty caused to Miss X. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by the Ombudsman starting an investigation.

The complaint

1. In short, Miss X says the Council failed to honour its offers and denied her reimbursement for furnishings. She also says that on completion day the Council demanded £1000.
2. Miss X says she has been left with significant out of pocket expenses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.(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 and the Council’s responses.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Assessment

7. Miss X says the Council failed to honour in full its offers made when deciding to buy back her lease after her property was ear- marked for demolition.
8. Miss X complains she was denied reimbursement for her furnishings and there were conflicts of interest due to certain officers involved in her case. She says on the day of completion an officer demanded £1000 suddenly and also the Council failed to respond to her initial complaint letter.
9. The Council disagrees with Miss X’s complaints. It points to Miss X being awarded an extra £5000 after she obtained an independent valuation. It outlines Miss X achieving a 10% home loss payment and other ‘disbursements’ amounting to over £8000 for removal costs, solicitors fees, surveyors fees, cost of homebuyers report and also the post redirection fee.
10. The Council also denies it failed to honour the agreement made in its ‘Landlord offer’ letter. It says reimbursement for cooker, hob, blinds, floor tiles was identified in correspondence with Miss X’s solicitor. It says the items she mentions were included in the property valuation as ‘fixtures and fittings’. Likewise, the Council says Miss X’s solicitor approved the contract where £1000 was retained for service charges and completion took place in line with legal guidelines.
11. With respect to officers ‘conflict of interest’, the Council says these were declared at the outset but these were not deemed to represent a conflict of interest. Further, senior officers oversaw the process.
12. The Council has looked at the operation of the buyback scheme and found Miss X’s property was one of the first to be completed. It has admitted delays while systems and procedures were being set up. It apologises to Miss X for this including the failure to respond to her initial complaint.
13. In conclusion, the Council offers Miss X a financial remedy of £500 in recognition of the systemic delays of the buy back process, in the complaints process and the ensuing uncertainty caused to Miss X.
14. We will not investigate. This is because Miss X has been offered compensation to remedy the delay and uncertainties caused to her and further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome for her.
15. I say this also as it is clear Miss X had legal representation throughout the buyback process and these were matters she could have clarified at the time.
16. I also note the Council has asked her to forward any evidence showing that it has failed to honour its Landlord Offer. This is reasonable.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman