Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s first Right to Buy application being cancelled and other issues. There is insufficient evidence of administrative fault by the Council causing an injustice and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used the alternative court remedy available to her.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about various issues related to her first Right to Buy (RTB) application being cancelled. Mrs X would like to be compensated for the money lost in solicitors fees, plus for the extra interest she will have to pay for a new mortgage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of administrative fault causing an injustice to justify investigating and there is a more suitable agency to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The law also 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X raises various issues relating to her first RTB application that was cancelled by the Council. In particular she says her personal documents were not returned by the Council and this may represent a breach of her personal data.
6. The Council has responded to Mrs X’s complaints. It has provided a chronology of its actions and advised the reason for the cancellation was Ms X not submitting the information requested. It also said it returned her documents, and the file copies have been deleted.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. In this case, the Council appears to have followed the Right to Buy process correctly, providing an explanation for the cancellation, so there is insufficient evidence of administrative fault causing injustice to justify starting an investigation.
8. Furthermore, the Housing Act 1985 carries a provision for RTB applicants who to challenge any matters arising during the process in the County Court. With reference to paragraph 3 above, if Mrs X believes she had grounds to challenge the cancellation, the Ombudsman would normally consider it reasonable to expect her to have used this alternative court remedy.
9. Finally, we would not be able to determine if the Council posted back Mrs X’s personal documents as it says it did. If Mrs X believes her personal data may have been compromised, she may wish to raise this with the office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) which is the UK’s regulator for information rights.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of administrative fault causing an injustice, and it was reasonable to expect her to use the alternative court remedy. Finally, the complaint about her personal data being lost is better addressed by a more suitable agency, the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman