The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays and issues relating to her Right to Buy application. The Council have admitted delays and offered a goodwill payment. Ms X has the right to go to county court to resolve the other issues of which she complains which it would be reasonable to expect her to use.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council have made errors and caused delays in handling her Right to Buy (RTB) application which has caused her to pay rent for longer before she is able to purchase her house and that she is then tied to the house for longer after completion due to the delays.
Ms X further complains this means she has not been able to complete home improvements, is worried her mortgage offer will be withdrawn and that she has been forced to buy the house without a boundary issue being rectified.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X submitted her RTB1 application to the Council in early September 2020 and chased their response to this early in October 2020. The Council and Ms X disagree on the start date from which the initial four-week response deadline should have run. Following on from this, the Council would have then had a further eight-week deadline whereby they should be ready to serve Ms X with the Section 125 Notice (S125) detailing their valuation of the property.
The S125 was served in early December 2020, between 13 and 14 weeks since Ms X had submitted her initial RTB1 form. The Council admit it was unfortunate there were delays, citing pressures placed on them due to the Covid pandemic but that officers responded appropriately to correspondence and notices served by Ms X.
On receiving the S125, Ms X immediately exercised her right to seek a re-determination from the District Valuer. The re-determination did not arrive back with the Council until early July 2021. The delay in receiving the re-determination is not the fault of the Council.
The Council took around two months to serve a second S125 to Ms X following receipt of the re-determination. The Council admits fault in this delay.
Subsequently, a boundary issue was discovered. Should Ms X wish to seek further determination on the boundary and any associated issue, she has a right to go to county court under Section 181 of the 1985 Housing Act.
Ms X also complains the Council did not act appropriately when she served various RTB notices. The Council maintains it did act appropriately. A difference of opinion is not evidence of fault. Should Ms X wish to seek further determination on the validity of the notices served, she has a right to go to county court under Section 181 of the 1985 Housing Act.
As a gesture of goodwill and with no admission of liability, the Council initially offered a payment of £800 for the time and trouble Ms X has taken in seeking to have her complaints resolved. Following a stage 3 investigation, the Council increased this offer to £900.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because initial delays already admitted by the Council did not cause significant injustice to Ms X. The delay caused by the District Valuer’s re-determination is not the fault of the Council. The Council have admitted delay following on from this and have offered a goodwill gesture to Ms X. We are unlikely to have recommended more than that already offered by way of remedy and there is therefore no good reason to investigate further. With regards to the issues relating to RTB notices and any boundary dispute, Ms X has the right to go to county court. It would be reasonable to expect her to use this right.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman